500 words a day on whatever I want

Arizona SB1070

Arizona SB1070 (2010) is a law that just passed in the American state of Arizona: it allows the police to ask anyone to show proper identification to prove they belong in the country. Failing to do so can lead to a $500 fine and up to six months in prison. It also makes it a crime to transport those without proper identification.

Some say the law is racist. Although the governor says the police will be trained to suspect the right people without going by race, language or wealth, it is unclear how they would do that.

Arizona is 29% Latino and 5% Native American. Many of them look like they came from Mexico. Some have, while others have families which have been in Arizona hundreds if not thousands of years, long before whites (Arizona used to be part of Mexico). Most are honest citizens and yet the law is bound to affect them way more than whites.

Who is for it: over 60% of voters (in both Arizona and in America as a whole), Republicans, most white people, rank-and-file policemen, John McCain

Who is against it: Democrats, Latinos, Native Americans, police chiefs, the presidents of both Mexico and America, the ACLU

Some Republicans are now calling for laws like it in other states.

Arizona is just north of Mexico and just east of California. It used to be a bad place to cross from Mexico into America because of the desert, but because California and Texas have made it much harder to cross into their states, Arizona now has become the easiest place to cross.

One Republican said that Arizona is “under siege” – yet illegal crossings are down: because of bad times there is less work in Arizona to draw people in.

Crime is down too. The law, on the other hand, could make crime worse: the police will spend less time fighting violent crime while many people will be too afraid to talk to the police.

The governor signed the law on April 23rd 2010. It will go into effect by August. Nearly all the Republicans in the Arizona Senate voted for it and nearly all the Democrats voted against it. Republicans have been trying for years to get this law passed but each time the governor, Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, blocked it. With President Obama bringing her to Washington to make her the head of Homeland Security, Arizona now has a Republican governor – and so it has passed at last.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund are both hoping to challenge it in court.

It is unclear whether the Supreme Court will overturn it. On the one hand, the Supreme Court has overturned state immigration laws in the past – immigration is mostly a federal matter. On the other hand, the Court is heavily Republican and the law has been carefully written with a Supreme Court challenge in mind.

Well, the republican brats are at it again. As usual, they are out to disrupt and upset the apple cart. All because there is a colored guy in the White House. When will they stop crying and having temper tantrums about it. Can you please find another way of expressing your internal contempt for due process. We already had 8 years of the worst political representation in the history of mankind during the last administration. Just because this new president is trying to unravel all of the mess that he inherited, does not mean that he has time to play around with Republican Monkey Mess. This president is for real. I know how much that must upset all of you. Now go back to playing your little silly games and let a real man do his work. By the way, there probably won’t be any special interest gifts given out to the little republican kitty litter bags this year. Oh well, I guess you will have to make it the way the rest of us have done for years. We work for it.

You know if there’s some magical training they’ve developed that enables police to discern an illegal alien from an American citizen, please, let us know what it is! Because I have to tell you, it will put an end to racial profiling once and for all! Unholy crap! What is the matter with these Republicans? Are there knickers in that much of a bunch because of Health Reform at long last instituted by a *gasp* black president? I can’t wait for the lawsuits to start because they are coming, and this ridiculous statute will be struck down for the unconstitutional piece of xenophobic drivel it is. God bless America.

This law is atrocious… no one actually carries proof of citizenship/residence on their person.

I didnt become a US citizen until October 2007…my green card actually expired in September of 2006(I was granted an extension but I was technically illegal for about 3 months while my papers were being processed), nobody would have known I was “illegal” by checking my person.

Americans are becoming more cowardly as the years go by. I understand wanting to protect the border, but I dont understand compromising our supposed values for the sake of “safety”.

Just a question: don’t you (Americans) have an official ID card or something? Not a passport or driver’s licence, but a general ID? We have it here and you can get one only if you’re a citizen (hence proving you are one is easy).

Mira,
A national ID is on the wish list of some legislators, but as of yet we don’t have one.

In some states in order to get a state ID and driver’s license, one is required to submit a state issued birth certificate. Because of Federal immigration laws, when you are hired in that state the ID or Drivers license is not enough. Only a state issued birth certificate and Social Security card is needed.

The closest to a general id we have in america is a passport. Other than than id is in the form of a state issued driver’s license or id card.

Still, that’s not a solution. Because what else would the authorities rely on accept their ideas about who is illegal. In many american minds foreigners and illegals are people of color, and that’s who will be harrassed.

No no, I understand what you’re talking about. This law will be used against people of colour, no doubt about it. I was just interested in IDs, because Y mentioned that proving citizenship might not be that easy.

Well, actually, blacks, Muslims and Hispanics are still tasting it, and it will continue.

Am I surprised by this law? Not really. The illegal immigration issue has been around for quite a while, and this law helps to strengthen racial profiling on those of Latin American decent. It also helps provide an image to most white Americans that “now you are safe from those illegal immigrants.”

“Some say the law is racist. Although the governor says the police will be trained to know when someone is probably an illegal alien without going by race, language or wealth, it is unclear how they would do that.”

Yea, I’d love to see what kind of training they will have to determine the difference. I bet police arrests will likely increase ten or a hundred fold.

Overall, this is just another attempt by extremely, overprivileged whites to protect their land and people from those who don’t look like them all in the name of “freedom” and “democracy.”

When the economy tanks, it time to pick on the weakest in society. There seems to be a co-relation between a bad economy and immigration. It safer to do that than pick on the perpetrators of the economic mess you Americans are now embroiled in. Picking on immigrants serves to distract people from the bigger issues. This seems to be cyclical. If they are so concerned about illegal immigrants taking jobs using public services etc., they need to go after the companies and folks who hire them at low wages. Of course they won’t. They are opening up a can of worms they’ll regret.

The new Arizona STATE law mirrors the existing FEDERAL law that federal law enforcement is not enforcing. Therefore, there is ZERO possibility of the Supreme Court declaring the Arizona law unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, maybe you do not understand the huge bills created by the presence of illegal residents. The cost of schooling, law enforcement, social services, utilities, healthcare, etc.

Do you think the Mexican government is opposed to illegal entry into the US? The lack of border-control laws is great news in Mexico, which benefits from every Mexican who lives illegally in the US.

If Obama had any sense, he would push for a guest-worker program — AND — the elimination of the minimum wage.

The combination would end our illegal immigration problems by legitimizing the workers AND the employers.

I think the law is meant to discourage illegal immigration-something that hurts all Americans whether or not we like to admit it. But cutting down on it will protect both Americans and Mexicans. Illegal immagrants are in a very vulnerable position here. It’s a bad cycle for everyone. I do worry about racial profiling however. I am hoping this law will help give the police the tools to do their job-and stop Mexicans from being exploited anymore!

I wish that other states would follow suit. Illegal immigration and illegal employment hurt the country financially. Not to mention all of the “freebies” that illegals get.

I don’t mind paying more taxes to help out americans, but I will not pay more taxes to support illegals, irregardless of race, ethnicity or country of origin.

I work with minority students that are white, east asian, hispanic, south asian and black (africa, carribean, etc) and I have to say that our school offers english classes for the families of the students who attend and rarely do we get any hispanic attendance. Also, I have a friend who is a nurse (mexican) and another friend who also works with children(mexican) and neither of their parents speak english!!!

We are talking about anchor babies born into this country at least 35-42 years ago and their parents haven’t found time to learn the language? Why? Beacuse they are lazy. My nurse friends mother said this out of her own mouth. Me? I speak a little french and a little spanish, enough to get me what I need when I travel abroad. See that? I know that I will be traveling/going to another country and I at least take the initiative to at least learn some of the language. Imagine if I moved there?

Also, being someone that works with youths I see an increase of crime perpetrated by hispanic youths against black, white and asian youths where I live. Can you believe that the local municipality now has to raise funding for a gagng task force? Most of the parents of these “troubled” youths don’t speak the language and as a result, we need translators. Yet more money to be spent to fix the “problem”.

Me? I am a black female whose paternal grandfather came to this country as a LEGAL immigrant from Ghana, he served in the military when blacks were still fighting for their civil rights in this country. He would always say that his head was american and his heart was ghanaian.

I don’t care where you come from, just as long as you are here legally. I should also say that my brit friends joke about america’s illigal “problem”, they think us septics have got it all screwed up and don’t enforce our own laws…

1. What does speaking English have to do with illegal immigration? If you knew anything about the citizenship process, you’d know that you don’t actually have to speak English to become a citizen here.

2. How do you work with “minority students” who are White? That should’ve been my first clue to stop reading.

3. Given your atrocious grammar, I could say you’ve been “lazy” throughout your years of schooling (at least 13 years and you didn’t learn how to use a semicolon?) but that wouldn’t be very nice, now would it?

4. I suggest you find a map, put a dot on where you live, and then compare the size of that dot to the rest of the country (or the world, if you’re feeling ambitious). Maybe that’ll give you an idea of how significant your “experience” with 3 Mexicans is to the immigration debate. Reading a book wouldn’t hurt either.

Instead of going after illegal immigrants, go after the companies and people who hire them. It’s a case of supply and demand. If they hired more Americans instead of illegal immigrants at subsistence wages, you wouldn’t have such as large ‘immigration’ problem. Complain to companies like Walmart, and the people who hire the illegal immigrants to do jobs that most ‘Americans’ won’t. This is another form of “I’m not prejudiced…but”, argument. But I forgot, they don’t want to pay people decent wages if they can help it. Now that many of them are on the dole line they are scapegoating immigrants. This is hilarious as most of those complaining are descendants of immigrants. Immigrants to a land they stole I might add.

I support the law though I agree it will make life hard for legal Hispanic citizens. Illegals hurt the economy and take jobs away from American citizens. I don’t like the fact that while we are forced to pay taxes illegal citizens come and stay without having to pay taxes.

Why do people think the illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes? They would have to live where there is no sales taxes. If one works using a falsely obtained Social Security number, The FEDs wont complain if those taxes are taken out under a wrong number, only when you try collect would it ever be a problem. If the buy gasoline for a car, cigarettes or alcohol, they pay taxes. It is hard to live in this country and not pay some kind of tax.

BTW, I know of a legal immigrant who kept her British citizenship in order to avoid certain taxes.

I knew a white guy who got pulled over in a South Dallas neighborhood – the police asked him what he was doing there and then kindly reminded him he better leave because it’s not safe for a white guy to be in black South Dallas… *scratches head* nice, right? Effective coppery at it’s finest.

I think the law in AZ is meant to light a fire under Obama to do something about immigration. I also think it’s a horrible law that will lead to increased racial profiling.

I’m all for immigration done legally. I moved to Germany for a while and went through their processes – letting the govt know my address, getting working permits, getting permits for residency, etc. I didn’t file for citizenship as I wasn’t making it a permanent home… It was a pain, but it was legal.

The whole “Hispanic immigrants take jobs from low-income Black people” is a myth for logistical reasons. Over 50% of Blacks live in the South, and the rest are scattered around the Midwest and East. The few that live West are mostly in California (and Texas, to an extent), with tiny numbers in places like New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, etc. So if every undocumented Hispanic immigrant were to leave tomorrow, the number of Black people at jobs wouldn’t substantially increase, because there aren’t Black people in the position to do that work (fruit picking, other outdoor tasks) in the first place. And I cosign Hathor’s last paragraph.

You think “racial profiling” will only apply to people who look to be of Mexican descent? What rock do you live under?

Illegal immigrants live and work all over the country

Well duh Captain Obvious. The point is, the jobs that undocumented workers are doing weren’t “taken” from Blacks and given to Hispanics. (This is suddenly reminiscent of a college admissions debate.) People who want cheap labor don’t care what color the person is–if any of them many show great disdain for the very people they hire because they can’t understand them–at least most Blacks would have to rely on speaking English. Blacks can move to the West right now, and accept the same work for pennies, but they aren’t, why not? Black people who support that argument fail to realize they are also supporting notions of Black inferiority that they’d reject in any other circumstance. The point is for White employers to pit Blacks and Hispanics against each other and laugh their way to the bank as they make money off of human workhorses. What sense does it make to fight over who gets to be the slave laborer, when we should be focusing on the systemic factors that place white on top and black and brown on the bottom, regardless of education level and social class?

You have yet to a) question the employers who give people a reason to move here in the first place or b) make any comments on non-Hispanic illegal immigrants, which pretty much makes your argument a racist one. There is no reason for me to engage with you, since I don’t waste my time on people with your mentality.

Apparently the people who read this blog are a bit different from the norm, because every poll of black people I’ve ever seen show that the majority of blacks are opposed to illegal immigration, I count myself amongst them.

What I also get tired of is you guys who live way up north tell us what our policies should be here in the southwest when you don’t have the problems we have here. You aren’t seeing your schools and public hospitals being bankrupted because of millions of illegal immigrants using the services. My mother used to be a nurse at a public hospital in Los Angeles, she could tell you more stories about this than you have time to hear.

I challenge you guys to look up the case of Jamiel Shaw, a young black man that was killed by an illegal immigrant gangbanger. We have many gangs in L.A. full of “undocumented” residents that are up here committing crimes, murder and mayhem. We know who they are, what they do here, yet our police have their hands tied. They are not allowed to check their immigration status under Special Order 40. The illegal that murdered Jamiel Shaw had previous convictions, but nobody could deport his ass. Then he eventually murdered someone. What other country in the world would allow this insanity. I generally like Ta Nehisi Coates, but why doesn’t he move his ass down to a border city for a few months, then give us his opinion. Just yesterday a border patrol agent was killed by an illegal. These things happen all the time here, but it doesn’t make news outside of this region. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hPSwshFPzVfadMmjIwIckSRrKxswD9FD137G2

I know everyone wants to think all illegals are up here picking strawberries and “doing the jobs Americans won’t do”, but a lot of them up here are in gangs like MS-13 and 18th street, and many are involved in the drug trade as Mexico has now usurped Colombia as Latin America’s narco-terror central.

As for these cute little cartoons about Native Americans, meh… Number one, show me how many nations weren’t founded on conquest. Conquest happened in Europe, pre-colonial Africa, Asia, pre-colombian America, it’s nothing unique to the United States, Mexico itself was founded on conquest too by the way as there was no nation called Mexico a thousand years ago(and as far as I can tell Mexico still treats the Indians in the south like crap). Number two Native Americans fought wars and stole territory from one another, the Europeans might as well have just been the latest conquering tribe, and three, what happened 400 years ago has no relevance whatsoever to what our border policy should be in 2010. It’s over and done with. If Mexico or the Native Americans want the land back, well then let them declare war on the United States and try to take it back.

RR, when New Orleans was hammered and they needed people to start reconstruction, you’d think they’d turn to the many poor and unemployed blacks to do the manual labor jobs. But no, they started importing Mexican illegals on the cheap rather than pay Americans a living wage to do these jobs as it was in the past. Illegal immigration is bullshit.

The unemployment rate is 10%, and for those with no education or skills, it is upward of 30%. People have the audacity to say that they cannot find people in America to fill these manual jobs with unemployment rates this high? Gimme a effin’ break.

tulio,
I think Black folk know how profiling works, it is not about proving you are legal. It usually give police the right to harass anyone. Tulio sounds like a Spanish name, am I to assume you are brown or of darker completion. If you are, do you need to carry around your state issue ID and birth certificate to prove you are US citizen. And while you are going in your pocket to get these, can you be sure you wont be shot, because the police think you are going after a weapon.

Being against profiling doesn’t show how you feel about illegal immigration. For most of us here, it has to do with American citizens rights being abridged and other human being being mistreated. The police have no right to abuse an illegal alien and when an issue as incendiary as this, I don’t think Arizona can guarantee that the police will not act out their anger.

As a born and bred American of multiracial descent (which includes a lot of Native American ancestry), I’ve been mistaken for being Asian, Polynesian, etc…but mostly I’m mistaken for a Latina — often by Latinos themselves!

If we ever get such a law passed in NY, I can easily imagine being harrassed for proof of citizenship everytime I leave my house.

when i read the story about the black guy that was killed by an illegal from Mexico, in Arizona, I couldn’t help but support this bill. Also when a drunk illegal woman killed a bunch of kids in a bus accident and from what i read got away with it.

personally, I think there is probably a better solution than what Arizona had, but I feel this represents how fed up most of us are with illegal immigration. Arizona is trying to do what the federal gov’t refuses to do because of precious votes they desire so much. If the opposition really hates what Arizona has made, then they need to come up with a reasonable solution that works on the illegal immigration problem.

Personally, I think instead of fixing Iraq we should fix Mexico. If you fix the problem that is causing them to come here, then they will stop coming here in big numbers. Looking the other way is only bringing the problem to America.

My most conservative view is on immigration, I even go as far as supporting english as the official language (with exception to warning signs etc.).

I know no one is going to agree with what I said, and I really don’t feel like arguing my view on it.

I think your Katrina reconstruction example was a good illustration of what we face regarding immigration. The companies responsible for reconstruction could have very easily hired from the native black population of New Orleans and the surrounding area. The government could have easily MANDATED that they hire from the area. The region was devastated afar all. It would have been the logical thing to do. BUT NO! Supposedly, according to naive people like Jasmin and Abagond, blacks didn’t want to do that work. Every time I hear this sort of madness it makes my blood boil.

Jasmin,

If it is obvious to you that illegal immigrants have expanded well beyond the South West, then why did you state that economic harm to blacks due to Hispanic immigration is a “myth for logistical reasons? Clearly, logistics have nothing to do with blacks being injured economically by Hispanics in local black communities. Hispanics compete directly with blacks in every area in which blacks inhabit. This has NOTHING to do with logistics. Blacks are injured because Hispanics will work for significantly lower wages than blacks will, thus depressing the wages in a given industry. Did you even bother to read the article I linked to? Could you at least read this one:

I know you are busy and can’t be too concerned about this issue to actually bother to research it, but don’t act as though your opinion is informed.

Hathor,

I am unconcerned about racial profiling. Good cops can’t be effective without profiling of some sort to some degree. If SB 1070 results in racial profiling, so be it. Had there been more racial profiling on 9/11, the WTC would never have been attacked. And why do you assume that asking a person his immigration status is abuse and what makes you think the cops in AZ are angry. You don’t get it dude and from your commentary, I doubt that you ever will.

Anyway, I know people who are against this law want to make it look like random Latino families driving to church are going to get pulled over and then dragged off to the nearest deportation center. Think again. The law gives the right to cops to verify immigration status if there is already legal contact. If an illegal gets pulled over for a traffic violation and has no license and no insurance, it is “reasonable suspicion” that he’s probably in the country illegally and a cop has a right to verify citizenship. I find it laughable that people are saying, “it’s the job of the INS to enforce immigration laws, not the police!” That’s like saying “it’s the job of the DEA to enforce drug laws, not the local police”. So I guess if a cop sees a kilo of cocaine sitting on my passenger seat, I can tell him it’s the job of federal government to enforce drug laws, so mind your business! I don’t know what’s so extreme about requiring people to have proof of legal status. If you ask me, what I consider extreme are mayors like Antonio Villaraigosa, Gavin Newsom and Michael Bloomberg whose official policy it is to openly encourage people to break our immigration laws by declaring their cities “sanctuary cities” and even encouraging said people to use taxpayer financed social services, knowing that they are not legally entitled to them. But nobody sees this as extreme, it’s extreme to enforce the laws already on the books that have been ignored for decades because some think it’s “racist” to enforce immigration laws.

I agree that corporations and politicians do share responsibility for this fiasco, but so do everyday citizens and small business owners who turn a blind eye to it.

I never said only corporations, I said anyone who hires them. That would include the persons who hire them to do odd jobs or work under the table in whatever capacity. As for politicians, they are nothing if not opportunists for the most part. They will go with the flow in order to remain in office. If illegal immigration is the cause Du Jour, than that is what some of them will take up. I thought immigration matters were federal. I can see this getting thrown out in the Supreme court should this law be challenged. As for racial profiling, who’s next? This type of law can be expanded to include anyone. There are black and asian illegal immigrants as well. If other states enact similar laws, they will be able to stop anyone who ‘looks’ to be illegal. How does a 500$ fine sound if you don’t happen to be carrying i.d.? This is a dangerous law should it be enacted. The ramifications for freedom of movement should these laws be expanded, are great. That law is just a band-aid solution at best the potential for the curtailment of freedom at worst. You need to overhaul your immigration system from top to bottom.

‘The new Arizona STATE law mirrors the existing FEDERAL law that federal law enforcement is not enforcing. Therefore, there is ZERO possibility of the Supreme Court declaring the Arizona law unconstitutional.”

“The Americans keep voting for people who think corporations bottom line is the more important than the worker and that workers are a commodities like pigs, corn or wheat. This is our problem, not someone jumping the border.”

I agree. On the whole illegal immigration thing, the people to go after are the employers. But in Republican mythology free enterprise can do no wrong – no, so it must be the little guy who is at fault, in this case poor Mexicans. Wow. Just wow. And that in turn is used as an excuse to increase police power. Of course. What else? Why does this sound so familiar to me?

It is employers who break the minimum wage laws. It is employers who ship “our jobs” overseas. THEY are the threat, not Mexicans. But as always, THEY (white business owners and their Republican supporters) use race to divide people and draw attention away from themselves.

“I work with minority students that are white, east asian, hispanic, south asian and black (africa, carribean, etc) and I have to say that our school offers english classes for the families of the students who attend and rarely do we get any hispanic attendance.”

When I taught ESL classes a year or so ago, there was plenty of Hispanic attendance. Argentinan, Colombian, and even Mexican. I grant there were more South Asians and whites and they also attended more often, but others had work hours that didn’t permit regular attendance.

I am on the fence about this issue. I don’t think I am informed enough at this point to come to a decision either way. I’ve enjoyed the discussion here though; it’s interesting to note the varying points of view, especially between regions of the country.

Ya’ll,
If crime and murder is a reason for all to be stopped, then all Black folk in big cities should be harassed and deported, regardless of citizenship. That would clean up America!

What is the difference in a murderer? And how can you know a legal immigrant is not a murderer. The gang problem is quite different and does it make a difference if its Mexicans, Colombians or Russians. That is another law enforcement problem than immigration.

Tulio,
Have you not been stopped for DWB. If so, I hope you felt that the police were just doing their job and you thanked them for it.

Why do people here, think that Mexicans illegal or not are not in other parts of the country? They were in Minnesota and Illinois long before we heard anyone gripe in Arizona. There has been as big outcry among some Pennsylvanian towns in regard to illegal immigration. In Philly, where I live, you do not see many restaurants or landscaping services without them. I can’t say if they are legal, but they are here along with many other recent immigrant groups, Vietnamese, Chinese, Indians, Cambodians, Thai, Russian, Haitian, Colombian, Brazilian, Jamaica and other Caribbean, Asian, African and European countries.

I wonder what WASP Arizonans would do if they lived in a city where they were increasingly becoming a minority.

Yes, I have been stopped by the police for no apparent reason and no I didn’t like it, but there was a big crime problem in the area at the time. Nobody likes being stopped by the police, but I would prefer racial profiling to the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that we have in many cities regarding immigration status. The current situation is not tenable. Since the federal government has abdicated its responsibility in controlling our borders, it is up to the states to enforce our laws. The buck has to stop somewhere.

Additionally, I think racial profiling of blacks might just be good for us.

“On the whole illegal immigration thing, the people to go after are the employers. But in Republican mythology free enterprise can do no wrong – no, so it must be the little guy who is at fault, in this case poor Mexicans. Wow. Just wow. And that in turn is used as an excuse to increase police power.”

I am absolutely notin support of increased police control. If for only this reason, I doubt I will ever be in complete support of this law.
“It is employers who break the minimum wage laws. It is employers who ship “our jobs” overseas. THEY are the threat, not Mexicans.”

Question for you or anyone else who opposes the law: What sort of measures do you think should be put in place to crack down on companies employing illegal immigrants?

I think it must be those employers mostly in the southwest and those states where meat packing is an industry. 20 years ago and now my son has to produce a birth certificate to get any government benefit and to get a job. Even companies that had less than 25 employees required that I submit a birth certificate. I guess immigration is more effective here in enforcing the law thanin Arizona.

“I agree. On the whole illegal immigration thing, the people to go after are the employers. But in Republican mythology free enterprise can do no wrong – no, so it must be the little guy who is at fault, in this case poor Mexicans. Wow. Just wow. And that in turn is used as an excuse to increase police power. Of course. What else? Why does this sound so familiar to me?”

That of course doesn’t mean they’re all going to pack up and leave. Remember, all an illegal alien has to do is have a kid on U.S. soil and they are automatically entitled to section 8 and AFDC. The mother now has an anchor baby. Can’t deport her because the kid is born on U.S. soil.

And I posted another article for you that shows that not all of them are up here to make an honest living. There’s a good number of them working in the drug trade as well as involved in hardcore street gangs.

In the UK, they are introducing measures, if they haven’t already, of fining companies that employ illegal immigrants. Upwards of £5000 per immigrant. They have task forces that specifically target areas heavily populated by minorities. Not sure if they rely mostly on tip-offs to swoop on premises and make arrests or the presumption that minority areas tend to be hotbeds of an illegal underworld.

“I get this feeling that Tulio and RR have never been stopped by the police for no good reason, that they have never been racially profiled.”

Depends on what you mean by “for no good reason.” A few years back, I was noticing a lot more police patrolling my area at night all of a sudden. I had stepped out at about 9pm to get something to eat a couple blocks away and was through the alley behind my apartment. A police cruiser pulls up and a white officer asks, “do you live around here?” I said, “yeah, right here.” He says, “ok” and drives off. He then parked down the street and watched me. I was angered. Nothing like this has ever happened to me before.

I found out a couple days later from a friend a few blocks away that there had been 2 armed muggings back to back in our neighborhood a couple nights prior. This is a neighborhood that doesn’t have any gangs or violent crime, though we do get some property crime. The suspects were black. And this is an area where there’s not that many blacks. So I can see how a cop would be suspicious if he sees a black man walking down an alley at night after there were just two incidences of people being held up by a black man in a neighborhood where there aren’t too many of us. I mean really, what can I say? That the cop was being racist?

So that’s the only incident I can say I’ve been racially profiled, but under the circumstance, I can see why it happened.

I’ve not had any bad experiences with cops otherwise and I don’t have a negative view of them. The gangs and criminals around here are my main concern.

I would agree, but it wasn’t about the English per se, but rather the assumption that one’s English proficiency determines one’s eligibility to live in the US (which has no official language, as someone mentioned). In terms of global efficacy, the best official language to have is either Mandarin (the most spoken language in the world) or Spanish, just because learning one Romance language opens the door to many others. English is the oddball, and really not as helpful overseas as many Americans would like to think.

Unless you’ve taken a citizenship test, or know someone who has, copying and pasting from the Internet has little relevance. Fact: You can take a citizenship test in Spanish. Fact: I know people who’ve become citizens speaking little to no English. So somebody’s slacking.

I don’t know you, so your perspective on any topic is of little concern to me. But anyone who prefaces their argument based on “the people she knows” is going to get skewered in a debate, and I’m sure you know that.

The point is for White employers to pit Blacks and Hispanics against each other and laugh their way to the bank as they make money off of human workhorses. What sense does it make to fight over who gets to be the slave laborer, when we should be focusing on the systemic factors that place white on top and black and brown on the bottom, regardless of education level and social class?

Correct, if we grant amnesty one of two things will hapoend

1. Those cheap, illegal laborers will join workers unions, thus strengthening the numbers and lobbying power so they can fight for increase wages

2. If the illegals dont join the unions thats fine too. Increases in wages help union and nonunion laborers alike(in this case ‘rising tide lifts all boats’). Even if they dont join the unions companies STILL have to pay them at least minimum wage…thus allowing wages to hit “bottom” at a federally mandated level. No more paying lettuce pickers $2.80 an hour.

When black and Hispanic workers fight against each other its a lose lose. They are essentially fighting a race to the bottom,the winners gets to work for the least amount of money and the losers are ass-out. Neither are good predicaments to be in.

Right again, my parents and I became a citizens in October of 2007 . Because I was 17 at the time(a minor) I didnt have to take the test but, my mother told me that the test is available in at least 12 different languages, Spanish being one of them.

Question for you or anyone else who opposes the law: What sort of measures do you think should be put in place to crack down on companies employing illegal immigrants?

For starters, fine them heavily and suspend or revoke their business license just as the article MerriMay offered, stated. These are the same clowns who support politicians proposing these illegal immigrant laws.

And I posted another article for you that shows that not all of them are up here to make an honest living.

What’s the difference between home grown or imported crime? None, crime is crime. If you get rid of all these ‘imported criminals’, some other crime syndicate or criminals will fill the vacuum left by them. Drug dealing is a business like it or not, and is run as such in many instances. Homegrown criminals will just take advantage of this. As long as there are people around indulging in illicit drug consumption, a market will always be there. The illicit drug consumer doesn’t care where he/she is buying them from. They are not going to ask the drug dealer if they are legal or illegal immigrants and walk down the street looking for American ones. How about dealing with the problems which cause people to turn to drugs in the first place? This illegal immigrant problem is just a smoke screen for other problems and a band-aid solution at the most. This law has the potential to spiral and effect Americans themselves especially racialized people.

I think some people are reluctant to talk about a concrete amnesty program because there’d be a strong possibility that skilled workers (so educated people from other countries) would be pushed to the top of the list. Middle and upper-middle class people already complain about the influx of Middle Eastern and South East Asian tech specialists, engineers, etc. Given that the U.S. lags so far behind in math and science, people would certainly be justified in hiring skilled workers from elsewhere, and people wouldn’t have a very strong argument for opposing their immigration. I think the reason many people feel so comfortable targeting manual laborers is because they aren’t actually affected by the hiring practices faced by the lower class. No matter what happens, most of us don’t have to worry about our jobs being done by an immigrant with limited education.

This nation would still be a third world country if English had been an official language. In order for a democracy to survive and since all people in the colonies were technically immigrants, The government needed all the white male vote they could get to maintain a democracy. I would venture to say that in colonial times a third of Pennsylvanians spoke German. If one were educated one learned Latin and another Romance language such as French. Maybe you remember that the French were the Colonies allies during the Revolution. Their has been waves of immigration from the early 19th century to the present. It would have been difficult for the immigrants to assimilate if English had been the official language. You see, if English was the official language, there could be a law instituted that would prevent interpreters.

What is very interesting that when Canadians came across the border to work in those high paying union jobs in the auto industry, there wasn’t any immigration problem.

Crime is crime, it has the same deleterious effects on others regardless of who is perpetrating it. I have been a recipient of a crime. They haven’t caught the perpetrator and the case is unsolved so far. I really couldn’t care less as to where the perpetrator comes from or if it is someone I know, should they ever apprehend the person(s). The only difference to me is the types of crimes committed, not who committed them or where they are from.

Herneith, the difference is that if the federal government was doing it’s job, that crime committed by an illegal alien wouldn’t have happened in the first place. I pointed out previously the case of Jamiel Shaw. Why don’t you go tell his parents that it made no difference why their son is dead. If immigration laws were enforced, their son would be alive.

In the past, economic depressions have usually brought out the very best in the good old american way. Lets go back in time a little. I can remember some really good examples of how people express their feelings when under financial hard times or extended social pressures. Riots are
a pretty good way of relieving stress. Examples: Rosewood
Florida 1922, NYC 1862, Detroit 1981, Watts 1965, NYC 1863, Philadelphia 1855, Los Angeles 1871 (good one), Argentina 2001, Tulsa Oklahoma 1919 and the list goes on.

Don’t these poor Mexicans realize that this is one of the things that we do so well. We allowed them to come across the border for all of those years so we could have a new group to persecute when times got hard here in the states. This behavior is part of our great and proud american heritage. We only used the American Indians for practice. Just when it started getting good, there were none left. Damn!

Of course, we don’t like to talk about it because we pretend as if it did not actually happen. Makes us all feel a whole lot better. In fact, whenever we do something bad to a group of people from another country, we just simply deny it. That way we can keep our heavenly and Godly image squeeky clean. For the most part, we are really good people (on paper). We have treaties and aggrements that are actually pasted up in some of our museums.

The “Forty Acres and a Mule” was a really good joke. I bet a lot of african americans are still running around saying “Where is the land that we were promised ?Hee, Hee we just say to them ” We were not here at the time this aggreement was written,we have no idea what you people are talking about.”

It’s ok, they can wait just like all of the rest of the people that we wrote worthless aggreements and treaties with. In the last 20 years our banking system has adopted a brand new 50 year business procedure.

It goes something like this,when in doubt, lie, cheat, steal, misrepresent, deny and swindle everything and everybody that you can. We should have put that in the constitution but we ran out of room. So my good and faithful Mexican peasants coming across the Arizona border, the grass is definately greener on the other side.

How else do you think we could get you to take such a dangerous trip to get here. We make sure that you can see the grass from Mexico. Keep on commin. We got a whole new game of life to show you when you get here.

Oh, by the way it a’int free. You will pay dearly for your arrival. We are just getting around to the new folks. Guess who they are ?

tulio
“Herneith, the difference is that if the federal government was doing it’s job, that crime committed by an illegal alien wouldn’t have happened in the first place. I pointed out previously the case of Jamiel Shaw. Why don’t you go tell his parents that it made no difference why their son is dead. If immigration laws were enforced, their son would be alive.”

Exactly what I was thinking.

By saying that it doesn’t matter the legal status of Jamiel Shaw’s murderer and that crime is crime is the same as saying that if Jamiel hadn’t been murdered by an illegal alien, a legal resident was going to come along and kill him anyway…so it all balances out in the end.

Regardless the number of homegrown criminals, Jamiel Shaw wasn’t killed by one of them. And what’s more, he’d probably be alive today if the illegal alien who did murder him had been quickly caught and sent right back from whence he came or effectively kept out in the first place.

Sure, both groups who commit crimes are equally at fault, but at least one group of people have the right to be here.

This is from the blog you refer to J, and he says my statement was absurd. Murder is murder regardless of where the person is from. As for the problems they are having now with these illegal immigrants? That is something of their own making. Is this illegal immigrant problem a recent phenomenon? When did they become slack in enforcing these federal immigration laws? How it was allowed to spiral out of control to the point where laws are being enacted to counteract this phenomenon? What about all the other criminals murdering, thieving creating havoc? It’s not as bad if they are citizens. I get it. As for ‘schooling’, schooling who? This is a smokescreen, band-aid solution plain and simple. They have more things to worry about like their economy among other things. Who’s next? I am sure they will eventually come up with excuses to target other groups under some pretext or another.

But anecdotal impression cannot substitute for scientific evidence. In fact, data from the census and other sources show that for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated and the least acculturated. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population. What is more, these patterns have been observed consistently over the last three decennial censuses, a period that spans the current era of mass immigration and mass imprisonment, and recall similar national-level findings reported by three major government commissions during the first three decades of the 20th century.

Given the cumulative weight of this evidence, immigration is arguably one of the reasons that crime rates have dropped in the United States over the past decade and a half. Indeed, a further implication of this evidence is that if immigrants suddenly disappeared and the country became immigrant-free (and illegal-immigrant free), crime rates would likely increase. The problem of crime and incarceration in the United States is not “caused” or even aggravated by immigrants, regardless of their legal status. But the misperception that the opposite is true persists among policymakers, the media, and the general public, thereby impoverishing a genuine understanding—a situation that undermines the development of reasoned public responses to both crime and immigration.

I commend you for bothering to research this issue. Most pro-immigration folk are too lazy or disinterested to do the real work of proving a point. The immigration problem is not a recent phenomenon. It has been a growing problem since the Immigration Reform Act of 1965. Between 1924 and 1965, immigration was very limited. The problem became drastically worse after the first amnesty was passed and signed by Regan in 1986. The number of illegal immigrants has only increased since then.

You wrote:

What about all the other criminals murdering, thieving creating havoc? It’s not as bad if they are citizens.

I partially agree with you. Murder is always a tragedy, regardless of the immigration status of the perpetrator. The point that you are missing is that we don’t have to allow ANY immigration to the US. The importation of even one additional murderer is one immigrant too many. We have enough crime here in America. We don’t need additional murderers, rapists, gang-bangers etc.

They have more things to worry about like their economy among other things.

But immigrants also negatively affect the economy. In addition to being forced to provide additional funding for educating immigrants, we also have to welfare benefits, medical care and support for the penal system. I haven’t even taken into account the depressing affect immigrants have on wages.

As for Rumbault link you cite, the author fails to take into account three major points:

1)Blacks skew the native crime rate upwards. If blacks are taken out of the statistics, Hispanics commit approximately 2.5 times more crime than native whites.

2)Hispanics are often lumped in with whites for purposes of crimes statistics, artificially inflating the white crime rate.

Item 3 is a dodge employed often by the pro-immigrant lobby. If the illegal immigrants weren’t here in the first place, we wouldn’t have to put up with the increased level of native Hispanic crime commited by their offspring.

Ron Unz uses a new dodge to explain increased immigrant crime, by stating that crime is mostly concentrated among young men and being that Hispanics are generally much younger than whites, he compares rate of crime among young men, which shows, according to his statistics that young foreign born Hispanics are less likely to commit crime. Of course, this argument suffers from item 2 as stated above, but his point is still quite irrelevant. Hispanics make up for this in volume. There are just so many young Hispanic males around that even if I accepted his data on face value, his point is subsumed by the glaring reality of the overall Hispanic crime rate. His point are refuted by Ed Rubenstein here:http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/100224_nd.htm

Y wrote:

Correct, if we grant amnesty one of two things will hapoend

1.Those cheap, illegal laborers will join workers unions, thus strengthening the numbers and lobbying power so they can fight for increase wages
2.If the illegals dont join the unions thats fine too. Increases in wages help union and nonunion laborers alike(in this case ‘rising tide lifts all boats’). Even if they dont join the unions companies STILL have to pay them at least minimum wage…thus allowing wages to hit “bottom” at a federally mandated level. No more paying lettuce pickers $2.80 an hour.

You are quite wrong on both points. Remember, we had a blanket amnesty in 1986. Working class wages DID NOT increase. This is basic economics. Unions are able to increase wages by LIMITING employer access to labor. This is why it has been hard traditionally for blacks to get into trade unions. Unions have traditionally sought to limit the number of available workers, not increase them. This way, they can demand higher wages for their workers. Increased membership in unions does NOT increase the bargaining power of union workers, but it does increase the visibility and salary of union leaders, like the former head of SEIU Andy Stein. Your second point is perfectly illustrative of why we need to limit immigration. What you are suggesting is that everyone should work for minimum wage. It is essentially a race to the bottom. Being that you are an immigrant yourself, minimum wage might very well look good to you, but most native Americans shoot for substantially higher wages. We don’t want to have to live 6 and seven people to a room to make ends meet, like many illegal immigrants do. There is no benefit to illegal immigration to the country as a whole at all, except to those who hire illegal aliens.

Most pro-immigration folk are too lazy or disinterested to do the real work of proving a point.

I’m not pro or anti-immigration. I find it strange that this has been happening for years, from what others have posted, decades. Why was it allowed to get out of hand? These illegal immigrants have been going to the States in droves, this isn’t a recent phenomenon. They are also starting to leave in droves. With this new law, they are just going to other states which do not have a similar laws yet. Should this law, or a similar laws be enacted, where will they go? Here?:

Item 3 is a dodge employed often by the pro-immigrant lobby. If the illegal immigrants weren’t here in the first place, we wouldn’t have to put up with the increased level of native Hispanic crime commited by their offspring.

But they are. You can’t deport them can you?

Being that you are an immigrant yourself, minimum wage might very well look good to you, but most native Americans shoot for substantially higher wages.

How will higher wages be gained? Will the companies say “There are no more immigrants so we will start paying the native born substantially higher wages”? I doubt it. Prices will skyrocket.

Lastly, with this law, what group is next? My concern is in regards to the law itself, not how American enforces immigration or doesn’t. This law curtails freedom, something I thought was burned into American’s psyche. I am surprised that all the Libertarians and ultra-conservatives aren’t up in arms, maybe some are. I always admired certain aspects of the constitution in regards to freedom, as written, not necessarily practiced. Thanks for your commendation by the way.

“Lastly, with this law, what group is next? My concern is in regards to the law itself…”

I think this is the crux of the argument. The history books usually reveal that draconian measures introduced by governments are usually done so covertly.

These measures are also introduced to protect the interest of the ‘masses’ – or so the Orwellian logic runs

In this instance it can appeal to what is known as ‘scapegoating’. This time round it is the ‘illegal immigrants’.

There will be many who will suggest if you do not break the law etc you will have nothing to fear . However, those conversant with the history books and/or those who have the ability to ‘think outside the box’ will probably think otherise.

I was also reading an interesting piece elsewhere that how the law is going to be managed etc, is also going to make matters difficult??

“On the ground, senior law enforcement officials worry that they will be overwhelmed by the costs and time involved in arresting, holding, and imprisoning illegal aliens (and what is more, the bill allows individuals to sue local governments for not doing enough to enforce it)…”

Why was the immigration problem allowed to get out of hand? I think it was due to three factors:

1) White ethnic nostalgia – Many white ethnics engage in nostalgia regarding how their immigrant ancestors came through Ellis Island and were forced to endure many hardships. They are sentimentally attached to unlimited immigration now because, by their line of reasoning, opposing immigration would be tantamount to closing the door on their own immigrant ancestors. Of course, they overlook the fact that white immigration to the US in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was particularly bad for black Americans who, of course, did not come through Ellis Island. Many of the jobs the recently arrived European immigrants took were jobs that could have been made available to Negro Americans, many of them newly emancipated slaves. Employing blacks then may have led to increasing levels of integration without the violent gyrations of the 1960s.

2) Business interests – Businesses love cheap labor. They always have and they always will. They will always advocate for increased levels of both skilled and unskilled immigration because businesses don’t have to pay the full cost associated with employing immigrants. They get access to an additional labor pool, thus allowing wages to be depressed, while avoiding the problems of immigrant maintenance (health care, housing, policing, education etc.)

3) Rising hatred of WASPs and WASP values – The goal seems to be to convince the US population that all people are equal in all things and that it really doesn’t matter who enters the US because we are all the same. WASP values really don’t mean much, by this line of reasoning, because these values (embodied in the Constitution) are perceived to be universal and don’t require many founding stock citizen around to maintain them. So, multi-multiculturalism and diversity are the themes of the day, despite the fact that we seem to be a much more racially and culturally contentious society now than when whites constituted 90% of the population. There is absolutely no support for the long term viability of multi-cultural and racially diverse nations in world history. We have no reason to believe that there is anything magical about the US that will cause us to prove the exception to the rule.

Despite all the frothing at the mouth by pro-immigration enthusiasts, illegal aliens are not yet leaving the country in droves, or at all. The rate of illegal immigration has slowed, but the illegal aliens here are not leaving, yet. It is my hope that those who have entered this country illegally will return to their countries of origin or some other country other than the US. As I stated before, even one criminal immigrant, or criminal child of an immigrant is one criminal too many. And yes, immigrants do negatively affect the US economy:

It wouldn’t even require a full on deportation operation. Just the threat of significant deportations in addition to punitive measures like denial of educational and welfare services to illegals and a significant tax on remittances should do the trick. This is not rocket science. We just require the will to execute. As shown by the overwhelming support for SB 1070 in Arizona and across the country, the will is there.

You wrote:

How will higher wages be gained? Will the companies say “There are no more immigrants so we will start paying the native born substantially higher wages”? I doubt it. Prices will skyrocket.

Prices won’t skyrocket. Remember, prices were quite reasonable BEFORE 1965 and BEFORE 1986. Illegal immigration did not result in lower prices but rather allowed companies to increase their profit. These gains were NOT passed on to consumers.

This law curtails freedom, something I thought was burned into American’s psyche.

This law does not curtail freedom. This law basically reasserts laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. There is nothing new here. As no_slappz stated, the law was taken almost verbatim from existing law. The police are only allowed to inquire with respect to immigration status during lawful contact. This is the case already in many non-sanctuary cities:

“Prices won’t skyrocket. Remember, prices were quite reasonable BEFORE 1965 and BEFORE 1986. Illegal immigration did not result in lower prices but rather allowed companies to increase their profit. These gains were NOT passed on to consumers.”

That’s very true. I always find that scare tactic laughable about how we can’t “afford” to go without illegal immigration because everything will skyrocket in price. Illegals build practically all new homes in California for the past 20 years. I’d love for someone to show me how California housing has decreased in price because of the cheap labor!

Companies can only charge what the market will bear. If they have to hire legal workers at a living wage, they will have to enjoy less profit. If they start charging $8 for a box of strawberries well then people will stop buying strawberries. Simple as that. That can’t charge more than people are willing to pay. Only oil companies can do that!

It’s an unfortunate occurrence for the State of Arizona. From what I hear the law is a result of there being so many illegal immigrants in the state. Off top, the law represents racism. No matter how they try to word it, or add spin, SB1070 will become known as the law that pretty much discriminated against brown people. Hopefully the Supreme Court, in all it’s glory, will look deeper into the cause and effects, and overturn.

If not, well, it will be a long one.

Too funny @ John McCain being all for this passage.

And that cartoon – I believe there is some truth beneath the underlying message.

Your housing example was right on the money. Not only did house prices skyrocket despite massive illegal immigration, but immigration itself played a large part in the securitization disaster. Many homes were sold to immigrants with little or no money down. We know how that turned out.

Don,

How, exactly, does SB 1070 represent racism? The law itself is not race specific. You are being quite presumptuous in assuming AZ police will use SB 1070 for unlawful purposes. Let’s examine the effect of the law AFTER it goes into effect. If we find officers misusing the law, it can be repealed. Right now, something must be done. Immigration is out of control. We, the citizens of the US determine who can and cannot enter our country.

I want to “read” the law, and I can’t find it anywhere. Where can I find it, word for word? What do I need to put into a search engine to find the law, word for word? If I can’t find it, I’d imagine there’s other people, possibly even protestors that can’t find it. And if I can’t find it, why should I be for or against it – because of what people tell me to think? Sorry, my trust isn’t so easily earned these days. I expect alot of people to respond to this, and give me a website address to “read” the bill/law. If I don’t, it would indicate to me, that alot of people don’t know what they’re protesting for or against. That’s reasonable thinking, isn’t it?

” I hope the law goes official all over america so all the US citizens and people that don’t have the luxury of border-jumping can get some justice.”

..It reminded me of this famous quote:

‘First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me’.

Y’know, I’m summarily uninterested in adopting a pro- or anti-immigration position. I have no interest in arguing this.

To me, as for the Catholic Bishops of America, it is first, foremost and ultimately a MORAL question: do we treat our fellow man as if he were a member of a different and inferior (and contagious) species?

Like the Catholic Bishops (who’ve managed to take a morally correct position for once, much to my amazement) I say “NO!” And I am willing to put my life, liberty and sacred honor at risk in service of that “no”.

America cannot close itself off from the rest of humanity. Period.

Simple as that.

Now, I’m sure the Nazis encouraged all sorts of debate regarding whether or not the Jews were an economic burden to Germany. In fact, I KNOW that they did. So y’all might want to keep that in mind when you start rationally discussing with RR whether entire continents of people are “acceptable” as your neighbors or not.

Some debates occur only to hide their slippery moral underpinnings. To engage in them is to give them a dubious rationality that’s almost autistic in its moral disconnect from life as it’s lived.

People should remember that anything – even pedophilia, slavery and racism – has a “rational, economic” side to it.

Do you really want to go down that road?

The funny thing about this is that conservatives like RR are constantly decrying “moral relativism”, yet on this issue, they are far more radically “morally relativist” than any liberal anthropologist.

Hilarious that the ones always pining for small government, crying about “socialism” and more “freedoms”, and comparing Obama to Hitler are the same ones who will turn around and support this proto-fascist bill, or at least make an exception because it provides an opportunity to openly harass brown people. Like Chris Rock said, “the hypocrisy of our democracy”.

Anyway, congratulations on being the finalist in that “Who Wants To Be The Fourth Reich” Contest, Arizona. I’m sure you’ll make your Fuhrer proud.

Do you think you could go through the trouble and tell us HOW SB 1070 is Fascist? Immigrants have always been required to have their Visas/green cards with them at all times. This law only reasserts existing law. You are being hysterical.

J,

My point is that local politicians are more responsive to the needs of Americans than are those in Congress and the White House. Pressure can be brought immediately to bear on local pols. That is why Gov. Brewer signed the legislation (she didn’t want to, but she was forced to). And politicians don’t “create” racism. They capitalize on the antagonisms already in existence.

My point is that local politicians are more responsive to the needs of Americans than are those in Congress and the White House. Pressure can be brought immediately to bear on local pols. That is why Gov. Brewer signed the legislation (she didn’t want to, but she was forced to). And politicians don’t “create” racism. They capitalize on the antagonisms already in existence.

Can you shed some light by kindly answering this question:

‘Can you point me to where ‘local politics’ in the sense ‘forced’ Gov. Brewer to sign the legislation as a result of what the local populace had been saying about immigration in Arizona and not for some other factor(s)??’

Are you going to add anything to this debate or will you continue to submit ad hominem attacks as argumentation? You started off by supporting immigration on moral grounds. Can you develop this argument further? Do you have anything left? Just stick to the facts, if you can. And be mindful of Godwin’s Law.

Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply. It would be impossible to discuss fascism, racism or even modern history if one were to weorry about Godwin’s Law. In this case, the parallels between Arizona and the beginning of Germany’s race laws are obvious.

I am afraid you are deluding yourself if you seriously think the deportation of 20 million Mexicans or whatever the figure is, will lead to a greater improvement for Black people per se in America.

You are seriously deluded if you think that immigration has not hurt black Americans. Do you think jobs just grow on trees? Do you think the 18% black unemployment rate is just some figment of the white racist collective imagination? Immigration has always hurt blacks, which is why Booker T. Washington and A. Phillip Randolph were against it.

You are seriously deluded if you do not think a country that is/was steeped in racism,, which only allowed Blacks to integrate into society 50 years or so ago, was lynching men from tres etc still has a very very very very long way with regards to Black people.

” ‘Can you point me to where ‘local politics’ in the sense ‘forced’ Gov. Brewer to sign the legislation as a result of what the local populace had been saying about immigration in Arizona and not for some other factor(s)??’

Admittedly, I am multi-tasking, and not very good at it. However, I read the link and I am not sure where the ‘local politics’ come into play’ here except for politicians advocating curbs on immigration??

If you look at my question I had asked how local politics on the ground with regard to the local populace, that had caused local politicians to pass this law.

This blog seems to concur what I said ‘politicians’ at the local and/or national level are the cataylsis with the issue to immigration, unless you can show me otherwise in the blog.

If you cannot find any information. Then please feel free to say so, since it will in no way minimise the position you are trying to advocate.

1. Immigration is too important an issue to leave up to politicians [RR]

2. However, at all levels it is politicians who either allow the immigration, do nothing about the immigation, scapegoat the immigrants, create racism against immigrants and the list goes on. I am not quite sure what your point is?? [J]

3. My point is that local politicians are more responsive to the needs of Americans than are those in Congress and the White House. Pressure can be brought immediately to bear on local pols. That is why Gov. Brewer signed the legislation (she didn’t want to, but she was forced to). [RR]

4. Can you point me to where ‘local politics’ in the sense ‘forced’ Gov. Brewer to sign the legislation as a result of what the local populace had been saying about immigration in Arizona and not for some other factor(s)??’ [J]

5. Here is an article stating that Brewer was forced to sign the bill because she is in a heated primary race with anti-illegal immigrant Republicans:

6. Admittedly, I am multi-tasking, and not very good at it. However, I read the link and I am not sure where the ‘local politics’ come into play’ here except for politicians advocating curbs on immigration?? If you look at my question I had asked how local politics on the ground with regard to the local populace, had caused local politicians to pass this law? This blog seems to concur what I said ‘politicians’ at the local and/or national level are the cataylsis with the issue to immigration, unless you can show me otherwise in the blog.

The whole immigration thing is besides the point. SB1070 is a bad law regardless because it gives racial profiling the force of law. The ends do not justify the means. That kind of thinking leads to stuff like prison camps for Japanese Americans.

Japanese Americans were seen as way more of a threat in the 1940s than Mexicans are now. Their race mattered more than their rights as American citizens, which were thrown out the window. Why? Because, you know, we all know who the TRUE AMERICAN CITIZENS are. We all know whose rights REALLY matter.

“You can keep your opinon but you don’t even live here, so i’ll just let you think you are correct”.

I am afraid it is not a case of just keeping your opinion.

Its a matter whether you have knowledge of current affairs etc, the ability to think outside the box and have the forsight and vision to understand how governments work and operate in a racist society.

You claim or you attempt to project a personna that you care and have a love for Black people, almost like the most radical of ‘Black Nationalist’ or Sis Souljah type

Unfortunately however, there is a clear contradiction. This is the real issue.

“…For the time being, though, the fuss appears to be shifting Ms Brewer rightwards. This week, she signed a bill prohibiting the teaching of ethnic studies in Arizona schools, on the ground that it “promotes resentment” by students from minority communities towards their white counterparts”.

You have obviously not read SB 1070. There is nothing in this law that condones or advocates racial profiling. This law reaffirms immigration laws already on the books. Immigrants are required BY LAW to carry their green cards/visas with them AT ALL TIMES. The police can only inquire about immigration status during lawful contact (i.e. during appropriate stops like running a red light etc.). Being that you think the police are the source of criminal activity, I can see how you would believe that the cops will abuse this law. But that is your problem. Most people know that the police are not the source of criminal activity, despite the existence of many bad cops.

Again, this law is nothing new. People like you pretend this law introduces something new because, contrary to your previous statement, IMMIGRATION IS THE POINT. For whatever reason, you believe that our civilization will crumble without immigrants. Most Americans feel differently, especially black Americans, being that we have lost ground during previous immigration waves.

This law is not a precursor to Kristallnacht or tantamount to Black Codes. This argument is asinine and anyone even vaguely familiar with the rise of Nazism in Germany or segregation in the US will see the outlandishness of such a comparison. Please, let’s stick to the FACTS.

I said, and I stick by it, that you are seriously deluding yourself if you think this bill is going to help Black people per se.

It depends on how you look at it. The bill will definitely help the people of Arizona. Being that about 4% of Arizonans are black, its benefits will be restricted to that 4%. If other states seek to implement similar legislation, the benefit to blacks could be huge. We blacks compete directly with immigrants for employment. I don’t think this is debatable. Less competition for labor translates directly into benefits to labor. This benefits Americans of all races, but especially black Americans.

What I would concede though is that this new law may help to serve an individual who is worried that their job, or potential for work ie their selfish means as opposed to the implication for the race

So, you concede this point, yet you don’t see how this will benefit blacks. Your remarks are puzzling. Are you under the impression blacks are more secure in our employment than other groups in these times? Do you think blacks (especially young blacks) have higher levels of employment than other groups (http://www.youngmoney.com/careers/black-minority-and-low-income-teens-record-high-unemployment/)? Do you think blacks should be unconcerned about putting food on the table for their families as opposed to being obsessed with the immigration mythology of white ethnics?

If you think I am a Libertarian, you haven’t been reading me very closely, which doesn’t surprise me. You have illustrated a problem that I have pointed out to you on multiple occasions. You have a habit of attributing the stereotypical so-called Conservative opinion to me. You then argue against this stereotypical opinion (straw man), despite the fact that I haven’t supported the given opinion in my writings. Again, please focus on what I actually write instead of what you wish me to write.

The reason border-jumping is wrong is because of the following:

1) It is against the law of the land. How can an immigrant be expected to abide by our laws when he breaks the law upon entry? This engenders a disregard for the authority of the US, which may lead to further illegal activity.

2) It negatively impacts Americans. Illegal immigration helps employers (who may or may not be American0 because they can pay illegals less and work them harder than Americans. Additionally, Americans have to pay for medical, educational and social services provided to illegal immigrants, increasing the tax burden on citizens. The sheer number of immigrants drove up housing prices, fuelling the housing bubble.

I believe that our government has limited purposes. The major responsibility of the government is to protect its citizens. One way the government can do this is to defend our borders.

Your remarks are reflective of your belief that family (race) shouldn’t matter. You seem to be under the impression that people shouldn’t care more for their relatives than for non-relatives. Your view is unrealistic and anti-human.

1) To obey a law is not, and and of itself, a moral position. If the law is immoral, then disobeying it is not wrong. Laws which restrict which ipso facto human freedom of movement with no proof of criminality on the part of the person being restricted are in and of themselves criminal. If they were to occur within a nation state, the U.S. would consider them a violation of human rights.

I see no reason to believe that said laws all of a sudden become positive when they moderate movement BETWEEN nation states.

So your argument that “it is wrong because the law says it’s wrong” is morally invalid. If it’s a bad law – and it is – it is not immoral to disobey it.

As for the reputation of authority… Authority should not hold itself up to ridicule by proclaiming bad, immoral or indefensible laws. Machiavelli knew this but somehow you don’t? 😀

2) It no more negaitvely impacts Americans than the free migration of American capital overseas. If you have free movement of money, you MUST have free movement of people. You cannot morally or even economically and successfully have the one but not the other.

So are you also proposing that capital not be allowed to immigrate, RR? Are you proposing that money stay withint national borders as well?

I will not even engage with the rest of your rhetoric regarding costs and benefits. First of all, it is rhetoric, not facts. Secondly, human freedom is of far greater concern to me than whether or not one or another nationstate pays a bit more here and there. The fact of the matter is, the United States can indeed well afford human liberty. It pisses far much more money away on many other things that do not seem to bother conservatives such as yourself.

If the United States no longer stands for human freedom, than in my mind there is no overwhelming reason to protect it as a nation state.

As for your idea that somehow citizenship and family are one and the same thing: you are nuts.

I and most other Americans have relatives spread all over this planet. Genetically, you are probably closer to any number of your European cousins than you are to most Americans – even those of your same color. Genes and nationality are not one and the same and only a fascist – in the strictest political sense of that word – would believe that they are.

Human beings are not illegal. Life is not illegal. The right to move and begin a new life somewhere else cannot be illegal. A nation which attempts to make these things illegal has lost its moral bearings and has no grounds – other than naked force – to call on moral human beings to respect its laws regarding these things.

“Lawful contact”. Give me a break. I have been stopped by the police enough times to know what little protection that will provide.

Exactly. What next? Since ‘statistics’ say that blacks commit more crimes, are they going to enact a law that says it is ‘legal’ to stop all blacks under whatever pretext as they may have committed a crime? They do it now under the guise of the person being stopped fitting a profile. However, once this law is enacted, it will be legal to do so, and any black person will be fair game. Can you imagine being stopped constantly, having your background checked, maybe being frisked searched, having you car searched, more degradation, being strip searched if you happen to have an ‘attitude’? All this done ‘legally’ where no explanation has to be given because ‘statistics’ shows you might be a criminal? This is what in essence this law is. Due to governments’ historical ineptitude when enforcing immigration laws, taking away personal freedoms is the answer? Again, what group is next? I am not referring to illegal immigrants here, but the law itself which curtails freedom for legal immigrants and American born. If you happen to fit the ‘profile’ of what constitutes an illegal immigrant you are, will be fair game. Ask anyone who has been stopped how enjoyable the experience was. If you are stopped by a racist cop you had better watch your mouth and behaviour, as the situation may spiral out of control! Also, you have to take into account the fairness and impartiality of the police stopping you. Good luck! The fact of the matter is you cannot control this, as with other aspects of life.

Laws which restrict which ipso facto human freedom of movement with no proof of criminality on the part of the person being restricted are in and of themselves criminal

So, I guess locks are immoral. If I have a lock on my front door and a person picks my lock and comes into my house, the intruder is acting morally by your line of reasoning, so long as he doesn’t do anything “criminal” in my house. He can eat, sleep, throw wild parties etc. in my house but I, as owner of the house, should not be expected to throw him out because locks are immoral. I can’t argue with that type of logic. To you, all laws are basically immoral. Whatever dude!

Genetically, you are probably closer to any number of your European cousins than you are to most Americans – even those of your same color

This is complete nonsense. You don’t know what you are talking about. Speak for yourself.

The right to move and begin a new life somewhere else cannot be illegal.

YES IT CAN BE ILLEGAL! And it is illegal in this country. If a person wants to start a new life IN MY HOUSE WITHOUT MY PERMISSION, that is illegal. You have no conception of the law, evidently. I guess the law is basically what you, Thaddeus make it. Again, I can’t argue against such beliefs. We, the citizens of the US either agree as to what is legal or we have utter chaos. It seems that you prefer chaos. That is your preference. Why should the rest of us suffer because of your predilections?

Booker T Washington gave the speech to the Atlanta Cotton States and International Exposition in 1895. The purpose of the speech was to talk up industrial education for newly emancipated blacks and to dissuade the business audience from hiring immigrants from Europe. Washington failed in his attempts and Amercian Negroes were set back 50 years because of that failure.

You wrote:

With regard to the law benefiting Blacks. We have no evidence that if the illegal immigrants are deported that the vacant jobs will go to Blacks.

”But the raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents did not cripple the company or the plants. In fact, they were back up and running at full staff within months by replacing those removed with a significant number of native-born Americans, according to a report by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

You do the math my brother! This nonsense you keep spouting about deportations not benefitting Americans is ridiculous.What, exactly, is your experience with illegal immigration in the US?

The government of the US has not “whipped up hysteria” regarding immigration enforcement. In fact, they have done the opposite. They have whipped up hysteria against those who wish to see the laws of our country enforced. Immigration advocates (within and without government) accuse immigration restrictions of Fascism (even on this board). These types are obviously not familiar with real Fascism or they wouldn’t make such outrageous remarks. But these sorts of remarks sound good and makes the enunciator feel superior to those retrograde being base enough to insist our government observe established law. This is Godwin’s Law on steroids. There is nothing draconian about SB 1070. Could you please read the law and note, specifically, what you find draconian?

You hate cops. You are inclined to think the worse of them. That is your choice. Nowhere in the law is racial profiling encouraged. You are being presumptuous as usual. Please make a coherent argument.

Herneith,

Please read the law. There is nothing new in the law. This law neither prevents nor encourages racism. Racism will exist without the law. Some cops of all races break our laws despite the fact that it is their duty to uphold them. This law does not change this fact. Please read the law:

As much as you’d like to believe differently, the United States of America is not your personal property. It is not a house, but a nation state and a republic.

We are not talking about you making a decision with regards to how you share – or not -your personal property. We are talking about restricting human beings from moving about PUBLICALLY and becoming part of the res publica.

There is no moral reason to keep them out, absent some character flaw on the part of the person in question.

This is complete nonsense. You don’t know what you are talking about. Speak for yourself.

Hardly. If you are like 90% of white Americans, there is at least one immigrant in your family tree within the past four generations. You thus have more intimate genetic connections to parts of the world that are NOT the U.S. than to all parts of the U.S.

Now maybe you’re some sort of odd mutant whose family has been inbreeding in a tight circle for the last 6 or so generations. OK, fair go. Your experience in that case is extremely annormal and cannot be used as the basis for the argument that you are making: to wit, nations are biologically related families.

YES IT CAN BE ILLEGAL! And it is illegal in this country.

Of course it CAN be illegal. Anything can be illegal. The Nazis made being a Jew in Germany illegal and that is a simple fact, so please don’t whine about Godwin’s law.

What I am saying is that it CANNOT be legal AND moral. Apparently, you care not a whit whether or not laws are moral.

Once again, the United States is not your house nor your property. Citizens are not proprietors by any stretch of the law.

Make all the immoral laws you like, RR. You’d better be prepared to back them up with force, because they will not be respected otherwise.

Enjoy life in a police state, son, because that’s were you are headed.

Here we have a case of an illegal immigrant who is caught driving without a license and lying to police officiers who then says:

“I never thought that I’d be caught up in this messed-up system,” Ms. Colotl said Friday at a news conference after being released on $2,500 bail. “I was treated like a criminal, like a threat to the nation.”

HA! She was treated like a criminal. Ain’t that rich. She was treated better than a lot of American citizens. This sort of action is what SB 1070 is intended to facilitate.

Phil Kent sums it up nicely:

“Ironically, she says she wants to go on to law school, but she’s undermining the law,” Mr. Kent said. “What’s the point of educating an illegal immigrant in a system where she can’t hold a job legally or get a driver’s license?”

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Let’s see whether my analogy is a straw man. You stated:

Laws which restrict which ipso facto human freedom of movement with no proof of criminality on the part of the person being restricted are in and of themselves criminal

You wrote this. You may not have thought through this statement (it isn’t the first time), but you did write it. I did not ignore your actual proposition or substitute a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresentation of your proposition. Clearly, locks restrict human freedom of movement with no proof of criminality, so my analogy is apt.

You wrote:

As much as you’d like to believe differently, the United States of America is not your personal property.

The United States is not my personal property, but the UNITED STATES IS THE COLLECTIVE PROPERTY OF THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES! We have the right to guard it as such. That is why we have borders and a defense department. We seek to protect what is OURS! And this is why we have immigration laws.

If you are like 90% of white Americans, there is at least one immigrant in your family tree within the past four generations.

But I am not like 90% of white Americans. I am a black American with very deep roots in this country. My closest relatives are other American blacks, with similar deep roots in the US. No, there are no immigrants in my bloodline within 4 generations.

What did they do? Dust off the books and re-instate it? If so, I am not surprised given the economic climate.

This law neither prevents nor encourages racism.

It states, and I paraphrase: ‘If there is any reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal alien, then then it is law enforcement’s duty to make a determination as to the validity of their suspicions’. What does an illegal alien look like? The law doesn’t say this. How is the law enforcer to know? I see no criteria as to what signs are present that would cause a ‘reasonable’ suspicion. This is vague therefore more insidious than I thought. Given this definition, anyone could be stopped! As long as it is’ lawful’ of course. This proves my point! Thanks for pointing to the actual wording, RR! There must be some criteria for reasonable suspicion and I’ll hazard a guess and say it is based on preconceived notions as to what groups these illegal alien belong to. Is there some implicit understanding present that indicates who these people are? Are they from Mars?

Racism will exist without the law.

What came first? The chicken or the egg? That’s a non sequitur. Racism will also exist despite the law. The concern here is not illegal, legal immigration per se. The concern here is the taking away of your freedom, or the potential for such, should this type of law be spread or expanded to cover other groups.

Some cops of all races break our laws despite the fact that it is their duty to uphold them.

I am not referring to corrupt cops, but the ‘average’ one. That some will break the law goes without saying. There is no overt criteria for recognizing an illegal alien contained in this law. That means they can stop anyone, legally of course, if they have reasonable cause. What’s reasonable cause?

Nowhere in the law is racial profiling encouraged.

They don’t have to be, given laws like this. They can use this as a pretext, or some other ‘legal’ excuse.

@Thad:

Now maybe you’re some sort of odd mutant whose family has been inbreeding in a tight circle for the last 6 or so generations.

You hate cops. You are inclined to think the worse of them. That is your choice. Nowhere in the law is racial profiling encouraged.

Then why is he constantly being stopped? I don’t think he ‘hates’ cops, he is just tired of being stopped by them on some ‘legal’ pretext or another. I get the impression that he is stopped by police more than is necessary.

The main purpose of the SB 1070 was to allow the police to determine the immigration status of individuals during routine contact. This sort of questioning was done on a regular basis in the US before many cities passed sanctuary laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city) that explicitly prohibited police officers from determining the immigration status of individuals during lawful contact. SB 1070 was designed to render moot sanctuary policy in Arizona (Phoenix is a sanctuary city). Before this law illegal alien gang-bangers could not be reported to ICE for deportation. Now they can be.

What does an illegal alien look like? The law doesn’t say this. How is the law enforcer to know?

The officer can ask himself a two questions:

1)Does the person in question speak English?
2)Does the person in question have a driver’s license?

The concern here is not illegal, legal immigration per se. The concern here is the taking away of your freedom, or the potential for such, should this type of law be spread or expanded to cover other groups.

This is not a reasonable objection. No freedoms are taken away by SB 1070. The issue IS illegal vs. legal immigration. The freedom of an illegal immigrant is definitely taken away. No one else has anything to fear. “Reasonable cause” was a controversial issue before passage of SB 1070. The law does nothing to clarify or distort this issue.

Then why is he[Abagond} constantly being stopped[by the police]?

Hold on. How do you know Abagond is constantly being stopped? He hasn’t told us how often he is stopped. Is he stopped daily? Weekly? Semi-annually?

Just briefly when I am speaking off the issues of immigration. I am specifically speaking to the Black community per se. I am not speaking to a few individuals…I am speaking of the community per se.

For instance and on a more fundamemntal level there are many that have suggested that Blacks socio-economic status per se has dropped since ‘integration’ (ie post 60s), rather than ‘improving’ (Kerner Report if I remember correctly).

You suggest I am making ‘wild’ assumptions (so often I hear White people use this word when decribing the character of Black people – that is yet another topic. I think its one that Abagong has touched upon when Whites speak to Blacks on race.

What wild assumption have I made. I gave you an illustration how the US government operated in one particular instance.

Instead of addressing the merits, or the lack thereof with what regard to what I had to say you ‘diverge’ off at a tangent to allude to some other point.

I think the crux of the argument, you believe the Government rhetoric about immigration, and if this problem is removed. Then things will begin to improve for you and your family etc.

However, this is not the argument I am having.

If you wish to believe that this is the case, then this is fine by me.

Then what is your argument? What point are you trying to make exactly? Given your disclaimers, I’m not sure what issue you are addressing. You made a wild assumption concerning the benefit to blacks of reduced immigration. I countered that assumption. So, where are you?

Living standards have dropped across the board since the mid-70s. What is your point?

So RR, I’d like to hear more about this wild presumption of yours that the U.S. is your personal property.

Perhaps you’d like to show us where that sort of understanding of the res publica is codified in the Constitution – or in any other part of western legal philosophy for that matter?

The fact of the matter is, you can’t because such an understanding does not exist.

Nations are not “houses” with owners who can lok them up. They are COMMUNITIES. The right to come and go between communities is recognized by every civilized people on the planet as a human right in every case EXCEPT the movement between nation states. This prohibition thus does not have a moral leg to stand on.

Can you prohibit someone from coming into your community? Yes, if they have committed some offensible act. But morally, you cannot claim that their arrival in your community is in itself the morally offensible act which prohibits them from entering your community. Aside from being immoral, this is a legal tautology of the first order.

What you are saying is this, RR: “We make entry into our country effectivell illegal for people from certain social backgrounds. Thus, when they try to enter, they are braking the law. This makes them a criminal and criminals cannot enter into our country.”

This is a legal formulation that is Orwellian in its premises and deeply cynical in its implementation.

There are many ‘legal immigrants’ who never learn to speak English. That’s not an indicator. There are ‘illegal’ immigrants who speak perfect English. Illegals who came here as infants for example. Anyone can get a forged license, there are underground economies which cater to this. They also provide birth certificates, fake degrees and other such documents for those who are willing to pay for them. As for these ‘sanctuary laws’, it was probably politically advantageous to do so at the time, now it’s not. You should be angry at the politicians for the enforcement or non-enforcement of these laws.

The law does nothing to clarify or distort this issue.

The fact that this law doesn’t lay out criteria for what constitutes and illegal alien is a problem. Police can use this to profile certain groups. Guidelines are a must if they are serious about enforcing this. Of course they won’t as they don’t want to burn political bridges completely where Mexican-Americans are concerned.

Hold on. How do you know Abagond is constantly being stopped? He hasn’t told us how often he is stopped. Is he stopped daily? Weekly? Semi-annually?

You are right, I don’t know how often Abagond has been stopped by police. However, I have gathered from his past comments, that it was enough that he finds it disturbing.

And, actually, to tell the truth, black Latin Americans will also have a better time at blending in. Ana Paula, for example, is generally recognized as an American in the U.S. until and unless she begins to talk.

I still don’t understand your point. We black Americans have the right to pursue our own interests. Decreased levels of immigration and deportations of illegal immigrants increases our collective employment and wage prospects. This is good for the blacks. Is this selfish? Maybe, but so what? We are citizens of the US and we reserve the right to determine who can and can’t enter the country. And how is my stand anti-black? If anything, my stance is pro-black. You are thoroughly confused.

There are many ‘legal immigrants’ who never learn to speak English. That’s not an indicator.

Of course it is an indicator. It is not a conclusive indicator, but an indicator nonetheless. If a police officer catches an individual who, say, runs a red light and that person can’t speak English, I think the officer would be well within his powers as defined in SB 1070 to inquire as to the violator’s immigration status. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

The fact that this law doesn’t lay out criteria for what constitutes and illegal alien is a problem.

Arizona does have a criterion as to what constitutes an illegal alien. If you come into this country without the permission of the citizens of the US, as represented by the US government, you are an illegal alien. This isn’t complicated. This is only a problem if police officers are prevented from determining the immigration status of people they encounter during routine stops.

“I still don’t understand your point. We black Americans have the right to pursue our own interests. Decreased levels of immigration and deportations of illegal immigrants increases our collective employment and wage prospects.”

This is your choice to believe and accept.

As for your anti-black stance, I have already outlined 6 points.

One things about blogs is that an individual can adopt many personna to ‘fool’ themselves, or others they are in company with, to make a point and so forth. However, there comes a point that when one steps away from the pc, then all that is left is ‘you’ with ‘yourself’ and the ‘truth’ behind your ‘intentions’.

This is not a question of conjecture. This is not a question of belief. This is WHAT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED! This is what has been evidenced by the employment of blacks and other races of Americans at the meat packing plant that was raided because they hired illegal immigrants (http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2009-09-13-plants_N.htm). The illegal immigrants were dispensed with and Americans were hired at increased wages. This would happen nationwide if illegal immigrants were to depart.

I am going to attribute your remarks to your confused state. How can you admit that employment prospects for blacks are increased in the absence of illegal immigrants as you did with this statement:

What I would concede though is that this new law may help to serve an individual who is worried that their job, or potential for work ie their selfish means as opposed to the implication for the race

but yet conclude that blacks are negatively impacted by immigration enforcement. Your position doesn’t make sense. How does having work at higher wages hurt Americans, especially black Americans? You still haven’t clarified this issue, which is why I am failing to understand you. How do greater opportunities for employment at higher wages hurt black people?

If you are going to enter into debate with me, please stick to the topic. I asked you how blacks are hurt by immigration enforcement. You have not answered that question. Please answer the question.

With regard to your link. I deliberately tried not to address it merely because ‘one swallow does not make a summer’.

If you properly understood the thrust behind it, you would not have used it as an example to demonstrate that it ‘proves’ deportation of immigrants has helped the Black community PER SE in US.

Here a few things that caught my eye:

1. The link cites 3 examples of where illegal immigrants had been rounded and up:

a. Swift & Co hired Native American replacement

b. Swift & Co Outwest hired White American & U.S born Hispanics

c. House of Raeford Farms plant in North Carolina

2. “Whenever there’s an immigration raid, you find white, black and legal immigrant labor lining up to do those jobs that Americans will supposedly not do,” said Swain, who teaches law and political science.”

3. Exactly who is filling the jobs has varied, depending on the populations surrounding the plants:

4. Throughout the Great Plains, a new wave of legal immigrants is filling the void, according to Jill Cashen, spokeswoman for the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which represents 1.3 million people who work in the food-processing industry. Plants are refilling positions with newly arrived immigrants from places such as Sudan, Somalia and Southeast Asia.

5. T. Willard Fair, president and CEO of the Urban League of Greater Miami, said it has taken the greatest recession in a generation for poor Americans to line up to work in fields and factories.

“We’ll take anything now,” Fair said. “We’re willing to be exploited for a while.”

6. A report released last week by the NCLR found that the occupational fatality rate for Latinos remained the highest among ethnic groups in the country for the 15th straight year in 2007, when 937 Latinos died on the job.

“That’s something that native-born Americans and native-born Latino workers are dealing with for the first time,” she said, referring to the general working conditions faced by workers in factories, plants and fields

7. As the face of factory workers changes, so do the issues that workers and employers must tackle.

8. This month, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that the Colorado plant was wrong to fire more than 100 Muslim workers who walked out during Ramadan last year in a dispute over prayer breaks

If you believe that the people of the United States do not have the right to control immigration into our country, then your position is too stupid to be debated.

Again, you come up with a strawman. And let’s look at your own chosen definition of what a strawman is, shall we? I mean, we wouldn’t want you to weasel your way out of this one, by whining that I don’t understand the concept. 😀

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

You distorted my earlier argument that a nation has no moral right to ipso facto ban the movement of peoples by claiming that immigration law was, in fact, a case of applied property law. You then accused me of believing that you have no right to lock up your house. This was a strawman agrument, RR and your current position that I am saying that a country has no right to control immigration is a strawman argument in the strictest sense of the word possible.

Let me restate my argument so that even you can clearly understand it:

A country has no moral right to declare human mobility illegal, absent some other overweening moral concern.

José is a mass murderer: yes, the U.S. has the right to say “José cannot enter into our republic”. The U.S. can control José’s immigration as it has an overweening moral concern regarding it.

“José is Mexican and we don’t like Mexicans” is not an overweening moral concern. “Free immigration hurts us economically, but we still believe in free markets”, aside from not being an overweening moral concern, is also a logical contradiction.

So yes, RR, the U.S. has the right to control immigration, but that right is not absolute and it does not morally include the right to trample over innocent human beings’ freedom of movement as a matter of principle.

To wit, you cannot simply declare human movements to be illegal because they displease youand still have a moral law which is bound to be respected by moral people.

I rate current U.S. immigration law on a par, morally speaking, with the Dred Scott decision. I do not feel that moral people are bound to obey it. I believe that, absent information to the contrary, moral people are bound to give succor to their immigrant brothers and sisters, whether these be legal or illegal immigrants. Law is of no concern when one is dealing with human misery and distress.

Long term, I firmly believe that history will show my position to be correct. You can’t have a globalized economy and freeze human movement and we can’t have capitalism (let alone socialism or any other modern economic system) without a globalized economy.

I find it extremely telling that all you can raise up against my position are straw men of the type one hears on conservative talk radio. You do not have the moral or intellectual background necessary to debate immigration law as a legal and philosophical structure, so I advise you to quit well you are only a bit behind, RR.

“Just briefly when I am speaking off the issues of immigration. I am specifically speaking to the Black community per se. I am not speaking to a few individuals…I am speaking of the community per se.

For instance and on a more fundamemntal level there are many that have suggested that Blacks socio-economic status per se has dropped since ‘integration’ (ie post 60s), rather than ‘improving’ (Kerner Report if I remember correctly).

To which you replied:

“Living standards have dropped across the board since the mid-70s. What is your point?”

This is what appeared in yesterday’s UK paper

$95,000 Question: Why are Whites Five Times Richer Than Blacks in the US?

You are truly amazing. I am astounded. You are now arguing that preventing entry of an alien to the US is morally equivalent to slavery. This has to be the most berserk and bankrupt argument out of all of the bankrupt arguments you have made in this forum. What next? Will you state that Kristallnacht is the moral equivalent of immigration raids at Swift plants? As I stated before, your arguments are just too stupid to be debated. I don’t even know how to begin to disentangle the various strands of idiocy in your current argument, but I will try.

You wrote:

You distorted my earlier argument that a nation has no moral right to ipso facto ban the movement of peoples by claiming that immigration law was, in fact, a case of applied property law. You then accused me of believing that you have no right to lock up your house. This was a strawman agrument

You read the definition of a straw man argument, yet you have not comprehended what the words actually mean. You wrote the following:

Laws which restrict which ipso facto human freedom of movement with no proof of criminality on the part of the person being restricted are in and of themselves criminal

This is what you wrote. I did not distort or misrepresent what you wrote. You words speak for themselves. I pointed out to you the absurdity of your statement by drawing an analogy to property rights. Clearly, as property rights are defined in the US, your statement violates US law. A person cannot lawfully enter my house without my permission. You may think this immoral or unfair, but my house is my house and I make the rules in my house. I then stated:

The United States is not my personal property, but the UNITED STATES IS THE COLLECTIVE PROPERTY OF THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES!

This is absolutely true. You may not like this fact, but this is a fact nonetheless. There was no straw man in what I presented to you. You have a weak argument as usual. I pointed out one glaring weakness in your argument. We, the citizens of the US have the right to bar entry to any alien FOR ANY REASON AT ALL! Mohammed Atta hadn’t committed any crime that the US government was aware of before he was granted a visa to enter the country, but yet he proved to be a mass murderer. He should have been prevented from entering the country on the general principal that we have too many immigrants already.

You don’t get it. You never will get it. There is nothing I can do for you at this point.

It is obvious if you have a knowledge of the relationship between Black people per se in the US and the US Government over the past 400 years or so.

Its as simple as that

Really? Is it that simple? Then how do you explain the fact that we American Negroes are no longer slaves? How do you explain the fact that American Negroes advanced in the US at all? How do you explain interracial marriage, workplace integration etc? How do you explain a black man (OJ Simpson) getting away with killing two white people, including a beautiful blonde white woman with whom the black man used to have sex with? How do you explain a black man achieving the highest office in the US? Clearly, things are NOT as simple as you seem to believe.

As far as the Guardian article you cite, I didn’t note that they had controlled for things like criminal records or illegitimacy. Why didn’t the Guardian compare blacks and whites with similar family structure, education, credit scores and jobs? This would have been more of apples to apples comparison. Or they could have just controlled for IQ, as Murray and Herrenstein did in “The Bell Curve”. Murray and Herrenstein found that when IQ is controlled for, most of the wealth gap between blacks and whites disappears.

And if you want a concrete recent example you have the Patriot Act by way of illustration, where politicians say one thing and do something completely else when the law is enforced.

Note that the Patriot Act would never have come into existence if WE HADN’T LET THOSE IMMIGRANT MUSLIMS into the country in the first place. We are all suffering the after affects of 9/11, including and especially blacks. Your argument is still as confused as ever.

You are truly amazing. I am astounded. You are now arguing that preventing entry of an alien to the US is morally equivalent to slavery.

Again, nice strawman, RR:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

I am arguing that no country has the moral right to prevent and overarching restriction of human freedom of movement.

This was the case when the USSR built their wall and it is the case now with the U.S. and its attempt to build a wall.

I mentioned the Dred Scott decision for a very clear reason: to point out that “laws”, in and of themselves, are not moral and no one is morally bound by laws simply because they exist.

M’kay?

Let’s review my position, which you have yet to engage with:

Laws which restrict which ipso facto human freedom of movement with no proof of criminality on the part of the person being restricted are in and of themselves criminal.

Your take on that argument – that it prevents States from controlling immigration – is indeed a straw man, as I am not saying that States needs must let everyone in. I AM saying they must present a convincing moral argument for restricting human freedom of movement and this argument cannot be that said immigrant is a part of a group the majority doesn’t like. An individual has committed a serious crime? THAT’S a solid reason to restrict their movements.

You claim I say all immigration restrictions are bad and castigate me for that. That is not and has never been my claim. You have thus set up a strawman and lit a torch, pure and simple.

Now, I submit to you that you do indeed believe what I believe, at least as far as it applies to YOU and your friends. I lay dollars to donuts you thought the Berlin Wall unconsciable. I lay dollars to dounts that you’d think ANY law which would ipso facto restrict YOUR movements based on the presumption that you are in fact a criminal would be unconsciable. If you were to try to come to, say, Brazil and authorities were to look at you and say “No can do: too many people who look like you are sexual tourists so we’re not letting you in,” you would be outraged. (And let’s make it clear here: this is not a hypothetical situation: it has happened several times to gringos in the past few years).

And let’s be really clear, once again, that I’m not arguing that a state doesn’t have the right to control immigration, another favorite straw man argument of yours. I AM arguing that the State doesn’t have the right to restrict immigraction absent some overweening moral concern. Your pathological and racist fears of Mexicans do not constitute an overweening moral concern.

You may think this immoral or unfair, but my house is my house and I make the rules in my house. I then stated:

The United States is not my personal property, but the UNITED STATES IS THE COLLECTIVE PROPERTY OF THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES!

First of all, no, republics are not the private property of their citizens, they are the collective BUSINESS of their citizens. This is very clear in the origin of the term: res publica is SPECIFICALLY meant to deny private property. It means “a public matter or issue”.

So to begin with, it’s not a house: it is a nationstate and a republic, a completely different sort of thing. You might as well argue that apples are oranges when you make your appeal to private property laws as the guiding line for national immigration policy. You are effectively saying “It’s against the law to drive drunk, so you must pay child support”: you are mixing two completely and consciously seperated realms of law and attempting to assert that they are one.

Secondly, it is not “your” anything: it is ALL OF OURS. Every member of the res publica which, like it or not, also contains immigrants, legal and non.

Now here’s the real weakness in your argument:

We, the citizens of the US have the right to bar entry to any alien FOR ANY REASON AT ALL!

No you don’t. Not morally. You simply have the power to do so. Or, better yet, you have the power to spend billions of dollars convincing yourself that you are doing so.

Mohammed Atta hadn’t committed any crime that the US government was aware of before he was granted a visa to enter the country, but yet he proved to be a mass murderer. He should have been prevented from entering the country on the general principal that we have too many immigrants already.

And here is where you turn western jurisprudence and science straight on its head, ironic for a man who’s made a point of running his mouth off about those two things on this blog.

“Innocent until proven guilty”, RR. That’s the rule. Unless, of course, you wish to live in a system run by superstition and religion. Yes, Mohammed Ata did TURN OUT to be a mass murderer. So did Timothy McVeigh. Your point that an entire class of human beings who have committed no crime needs must be restricted in their movements because of what Ata did has no logical foundation in western jurisprudence. You might as well say that all white guys (such as yourself) should be prohibitted from interstate travel.

After all, we didn’t restrict McVeigh and HE turned out to be a mass murderer.

Simple rule of Western enlightenment philosophy, RR: peoples, as a whole, do not pay for the crimes of individuals.

I’m surprised that I have to remind you of this, seeing as how you are usually the person here telling us all how “western values” are so self-evidently superior.

So, once again, we come back around to the beginning: you don’t even have a clue as to what the juridical foundations of the nation are. You mistake property law for the law of nations. You aggressively deploy strawmen rather than engaging with my point.

Your losing ground fast, RR.

If you REALLY want to attack what I’m saying, why not do it head on? Engage with my belief that it is not moral to previously judge entire classes of people as undesirable.

Engaging with THAT would be a real argument and not this whimpy duck ‘n dodge crap that you’re pulling.

Seriously, Thad, if you want to strengthen your argument, you need to drop like a hot potato , the notion that people against illegal immigration are equal to arguments as though they would have supported slavery laws, or, that they are racist against Mexicans.

It really weakens your postition , it makes you look foolish and bafoonish.

There are some stupid right wingers who are perjudice against Mexicans, but, most people who are concerned about these issues arnt just outright prejudice against Mexicans

You are suposed to be pursuading people , instead you are giving people huge reasons to ignore you , and, belittle your credibility

I know this will be really dificult for you to absorb, but, it really does come across in a way to totaly discredit your position

I mean, what is more important for you , pursuading people of your position , or, insulting them with cheap shot ridiculas arguments?

1. Don’t let them de-rail the topic this has nothing to do with slavery or black people

2. This is the same as the crap on the incarceration post, many people would rather defend criminals and blame it on race instead of seeing that it is the fault of the person that chooses to break the law in the first place.

from the the person who shouts the loudest about love for Black people but is unfortunately filled with the Black Skin White Masks syndrome.

But, I would maintain that in a discusion about what is going on in Arizona and illegal immigration , portraying people who are against illeagal immigrants as people who would have supported slavery laws , seems really far fetched and would weakon the point of the person putting out such and argument.

There are extremly complex issues involved , and , I dont think it can be broken down into just simple acuasations of racist or republican thinking individuals.

For my part, I insist on wanting to hear directly what people in Arizona feel on both sides of the argument since they are the people who are in the middle of this context.

Their points of veiw on both sides would be much more valuable to me than much of what I see argued back and forth here.There are some down on the ground in the feild of Arizona , specificly , points of veiw , that would be very valuable for me to hear before I ought right would make a desician.

That is why I outright regect some implication that supporting this law makes someone racist against Mexicans (even if some are racist against Mexicans) or who would have supported slavery laws.

As Fanon rightly pointed out in his essay ‘Racism & Culture’, racism is everywhere it is the very oxygen that gives life to a racist society So Racism cannot be merely divided into seperate components and categories.

If a person wants to break that law, because he thinks that law is not moral in their life, and, they arnt hurting someone in the process, I say that is their desician, and, I dont conemn them , or hope they get busted.

But, there are many complex things I would like to know, like how does , or, doesnt, a huge amount of people breaking that law clog up the system ?

How much can a huge amount of people breaking that law, affect hopitals , comunity sevices , and other demographics that have to be affected by the sheer volume of people involved .

I need to know that in Arizona , before I come to any conclusion about it.

I just dont think it is a simple cut and dried moral argument, I think its complex and deserves a lot of reseach about Arizona, which I dont have right now.

I believe all countries have immigration policies. Ironically, Mexico has some very tough ones themselves. (Moreso than the U.S)

@ J

100% on the Black Devil/White Devil analogy and Fanon. Thanks for the input.

@ Topic at Hand – My wife does not keep up with current events quite the way I do, but as I’ve stated before, she often ‘resents’ illegals she knows that have certain priviledges she does not, or that she had to “WORK” for within the LEGAL system in order to obtain her “rights” as law-abiding resident of this country. You will hear many similar sentiments from ‘Legal’ immigrants to this country who worked hard to play by the rules in order to get here. When they start hearing things like amnesty or that illegals should have the same rights they have, they become a bit bitter.

As for racial profiling, I’m sure it will happen; however, in a state like Arizona that is already heavily populated with legal residents that phenotypically look like the stereotypical “illegal”, I think it will be a bit more complex. Many law enforcement officials themselves are of hispanic background. To me, its as simple as pulling someone over for speeding: Do you have a valid drivers license or not?

Can you tell me, do African countries have immigration rules and regulations?”

Forgive me here, this is being naive. We live in a world constructed by borders, where one person cannot just get up and go and stay in another country. Countries all over the world are constructed on keeping ‘others’ out. However, even with this there still are ‘limits’, and it is the ‘limits’ we are discussing here.

You have moved it to the macro

Whether the issue of immigration is tied to race, racism has to be looked at on its own merit, and against the backdrop of the aforesaid of how the world already operates.

My experience has been that racist countries use immigration to whip up the masses of people, to gain support/votes etc. They very rarely address the issue of immigration otherwise.

What one has to do is look at much evidence as possible, even from other parts of the world, if need be and then weigh up the Arizona situation.

This would require an understanding of many topics like history, current affairs, politics etc

After all this an individual should be in a reasonable position to say what they ‘think’ of the Arizona law, not merely on an individualistic, and/or patriotic level, or even as a result of the Government appealing to emotion – but rather based solely on the ‘facts’

Tis is what most of the public fail to do, and you see this same very game played here in the UK on a daily basis.
So much so you would have thought that the ‘trick’ would wear off on the public by now. However, it does not seem to be the case – and this is why politicians choose to appeal the ’emotions’ of the masses

You will hear many similar sentiments from ‘Legal’ immigrants to this country who worked hard to play by the rules in order to get here. When they start hearing things like amnesty or that illegals should have the same rights they have, they become a bit bitter.

Though this sentiment is understandable, it’s short-sighted.

What they are saying is this: “My rights as a human being were violated, but I was able to preservere. It’s not right that other people’s right NOT be violated”.

Again, morally speaking, it’s like an escaped slave resenting the fact that another slave was manumitted. Understandable, perhaps, but do you really want to go that road?

J :” We live in a world constructed by borders, where one person cannot just get up and go and stay in another country. Countries all over the world are constructed on keeping ‘others’ out. However, even with this there still are ‘limits’, and it is the ‘limits’ we are discussing here.”

more J :”What one has to do is look at much evidence as possible, even from other parts of the world, if need be and then weigh up the Arizona situation. ”

me :You imply that if one sais they need to check out more details about Arizona and its situation , related to this law , you imply that person is racist. And so if I say what about African immigration , is that suposed to be racist,?and you say I am naive to bring that up after you say “What one has to do is look at much evidence as possible, even from other parts of the world, if need be and then weigh up the Arizona situation ” (shugs shoulderes)

Im also still confused who this is addressed to : “from the the person who shouts the loudest about love for Black people but is unfortunately filled with the Black Skin White Masks syndrome “, do you mind answering ?

No , J and Thad , I just dont buy that if someone doesnt regect this law outright, they are racist and would support laws of slavery in slave times…..

I am more than willing to ackowledge that there are people who are racist who would support this law,that there are Rebublicans who would like to say they own this law , and, Im in a large disagreement with them for those reasons. But, im looking for the whole Arizona story before I decide if it is a bad or funtional law.

I need concrete referances to what the story is on the ground.

Im wondering if anyone thinks there isnt any problem with the amount of illegal immigrants coming into Arizona ?

Does anyone think it doesnt clog up the system in some areas ? just curious

Does anyone think that the enormous drug gang violence , in Mexico, that we have heard about does or doesnt have any affect on the Arizona border and inside territory ?

Im curious about these issues, and , I welcome any real lincs, about Arizona people, that may clear these things up. Passing words back and forth about morality and acusing others of being racist doesnt give me anything.

Ill tell you two recent illegal immigration issues in other countries that are reeking havoc:

In Brazil, there was just a report that the Colombian thug marxist group , farc, has illegal border crossing members in bases inside Brazil territory, reeking havoc on all of Brazil with enormous crack cocaine distribution hook ups with major drug gangs.If someone objects to comparing that with the Mexican drug gangs and Arizona, I think they are being naive.

And, the Congo is overun from guerillas from Ruanda, illegal border crossers taking an enoumous toll on the country.This would be an example of a worst case scenario of illigal immigrants jumping the border and severly hurting the country they have gone to.

I just dont buy that if someone doesnt regect this law outright, they are racist and would support laws of slavery in slave times…..

B.R., you’re either being stupid or playing the ingenue because I did not claim this.

I DID say that the people who are claiming “laws must be followed irregardless” would say the same thing during the Dred Scott case. They’d either have to or be hypocrites.

I think most of the people supporting the Arizona law are scared and uninformed. I do think, however, that racism plays into this in a big way. Why are they scared of MEXICANS, after all? Why are Mexican immigrants so much more troublesome than the Russians (who have a very nice mafia going now in the U.S. if you recall)?

In Brazil, there was just a report that the Colombian thug marxist group , farc, has illegal border crossing members in bases inside Brazil territory, reeking havoc on all of Brazil with enormous crack cocaine distribution hook ups with major drug gangs.If someone objects to comparing that with the Mexican drug gangs and Arizona, I think they are being naive.

And, of course, we can comfortably make our opinions and policies. based on this report because the Brazilian mass media NEVER lies or exagerates. Perish the thought!

Oh boy, Thad, you are playing naive about the farc reports.I just cant belive you would sluff that off. You know, the media isnt jumping on it whole hog like they should. They have done their darndest to not report about how much coke is coming in from the farc over these years .Estado de Sao Paulo had an article about it, Band remarked about it, Terra just had a report ,Globo hasnt so far, and , they are the big corporate titans, so, no, the media is not going over board on this.

Two farc members were just busted in the Amazon by the Brazilian police , and they confessed that there were bases in the Amazon to co ordinate distribution.The police are reporting that , not the media.

If you are in denial about that now, I guarentee you , you will have to cope with it later , or, you just please let me know when they prove it is false , and Ill eat those dollars and doughnuts

I will tell you what I did see on Globo, a report with hundreds of people doing crack on the tracks near the favela.And, there are nearly daily reports where I live about crack busts. And , the huge drug gangs are absolutly linced up with farc , or are you going to sluff that off too?I mean that is a proven fact going back to Fernando Beira Mar and its proven about the PCC also.

Im surprised at you, Thad , I really am, how can you sluff that off?

And, sorry bub, you called me prejudice, you didnt have your little qualifier like you do now.

I am definitly not going with the Republicans and the racists about the Arizona law. I just want some facts.

I just want some simple information on what is happening on the ground in Arizona from both sides, can you give it to me ?

And that for you at least is reconciling that you are not supporting a racist law, inadvertently or otherwise.
As a result, you have made the judgement you are not, which is fine.

However, you have not fulfilled the other criteria, whether to make a study of the law, to see whether it is based on a premise of racism or not, which could have supported your initial contention, or who knows perhaps refuted it.

The challenge will be whether you intend to do this or not. Most people would be comfortable to stay within their comfort zone

This is the most ignorant, ill informed, trash I have read on this subject. Did you know Phoenix is second IN THE WORLD for kidnappings? Our schooling, medical, and incarceration of illegals is costing AZ billions a year? Have you any clue regarding the huge number of traffic accidents where the illegal driver flees and has no insurance in AZ? You are a talking point for the liberal media and they love you, the rest of us who see things as they really are wonder in amazement at your ignorance.

Thad : “First of all, how in the he11 would you know? There’s a loooooooooooong history of anti-mexican racism in the American SW and I think all of us know full well that the cops down there aren’t going to be stopping white folks on the presumption that they are Russian or Irish illegal immigrants.

The problem here, B.R., is that people like you are bamboozled by the Nation State and it’s power. You believe that it CAN do anything it likes. While that may be true, practically, it’s not true morally.”

me :I didnt see this dreck, I mean, I cant pay anymore attention to someone who just sluffs off farc arguments as media hype, if that is your take, your take on this issue has no credibility with me

My family moved to Santa Fe after living in Chicago , I visit them and am in touch enough to know what is some of the mentality in the South West, again you come up very short

If you cant get me lincs to the down on the ground both sides of the argument, you are absolutly useless

Your Dred Scott argument is so weird and tired , you brought it out from somewhere the sun doesnt shine

i still support the law about illegal immigration but i lost respect for arizona. they signed into law banning ethnic studies…they claim they did it to target the hispanic classes…but that still means african american classes are affected too.

i hate that law because regular history fails to teach about other races…its just white history glorified as if americans have never and can never do any wrong.

not to sound like i am on the other side but i was thinking about how when someone said that the immigration law is similar to the holocaust…it could start making sense more with the banning of ethnic studies.

what i mean is that first you make people of certain races carry id around because of the immigration issue…and then you deny them their history as much as possible so you can make them weak…they can’t cause an upheaval if they don’t know the wrongs done to them (in all the history classes i had so far, it never touched on anything outside of white, a little bit of black and even small bit of native american hopefully that will change throughout college).

I think I have to agree. However, the rabbit holes runs so much deeper.

Here is an individual who took the time regularly to criticise Abagond also. Its one thing most people on blogs choose not to do.

And the excuse was she was being atatck by White racist.

Then i remember a conversation with No_Slappz where she made the outlandish claim that a female teacher had made a sexual advance toward her. NS questioned her and suggested it was all part of a vivid imagination.

on Thu 20 May 2010 at 10:54:55 55 Gallon Drum #101 stated:
not to sound like i am on the other side but i was thinking about how when someone said that the immigration law is similar to the holocaust…it could start making sense more with the banning of ethnic studies.

what i mean is that first you make people of certain races carry id around because of the immigration issue…and then you deny them their history as much as possible so you can make them weak…they can’t cause an upheaval if they don’t know the wrongs done to them (in all the history classes i had so far, it never touched on anything outside of white, a little bit of black and even small bit of native american hopefully that will change throughout college).

so maybe the opposition has an argument….who knows…

i just know something needs to be done about illegal immigration.:::::::

Well most of the “ethnic” studies are not based on facts, so why should any respected establishment of higher learning want to fund the teaching of fairy tales and racism?

on Thu 20 May 2010 at 11:06:54 55 Gallon Drum #101
the only history classes not based on facts are the ones that glorify white people and make them out to be flawless and innocent of all wrongs basically every american history class in this country.

at least ethnic studies classes offer perspectives of the same event from those who actually had to suffer because of white people. something you will never find in an american history book.

you need another history class white man, besides one that praises white supremacy. cause you sorely are lacking any facts and are nothing but lies and hate.”

and yes, deportation is the only way to get rid of racists like yourself “great” white man. you are a traitor to america.

go live in russia, its perfect for people like you. you don’t belong in this country whatsoever.

lets face it, white man, you lost. everyone knows your crazy. i mean anyone that goes and calls a cop a hero for murdering a child, is basically alienating any support outside of white supremacists and latino gangs who are all for killing blacks of any age.

and yes, deportation is the only way to get rid of racists like yourself “great” white man. you are a traitor to america.

go live in russia, its perfect for people like you. you don’t belong in this country whatsoever.

lets face it, white man, you lost. everyone knows your crazy. i mean anyone that goes and calls a cop a hero for murdering a child, is basically alienating any support outside of white supremacists and latino gangs who are all for killing blacks of any age.
”

Thats the cool thing about it….WE NEVER LOSE.

You lose!

btw

you are the racist here, not me.

Prove that I am racist with any comment that i’ve posted and I will leave abagond forever…

You cannot do it…lol but I can prove you are…do you wish me to do so, my leech?

In spite of Thads really dumb comment that I dont know anything about the southwest, because my family moved down there from Chicago after I had moved out, I would visit there a lot. At sometimes , I would spend a month or two a long time ago and am in touch with my family all the time, and, we talk about the issues.

I detest the area, the mentalities. Most white people flocking there are running from black people and come to live with the tri culture, Indian, Spanish American and white cowboys.These people try to act like the Indians, set up teepees and chant and the native Indians detest them.

What I can say is, there is no blatent anti Mexican, and, quite a few police are Spanish American (they dont want to be refferred to as Mexican).

I can say, they dont have a blatent problem with Mexican illegal immigration.

That is why its crucial to figure out if Arizona is differant from New Mexico.

To actualy figure out it Arizona has much more sever problems on the gound ,with , the violence from the drug gangs, the kidnappings, or just the volume of people coming in and if the system can handle it.And if they are shutting out local people including Indians who could use those jobs the Mexicans coming over illegaly , are taking

These are the crucial peices of information Id like to know if I am going to make a desician on this subject, which, I just havent totaly make up my mind about.

I dont support giving the police carte blanche to do anything they want.

I would say, since the law is on place, what has to happen is vigalance by the people to make sure to go through legal channals to address any abuses that could happen with this law.

Now, I hate to have to do Thad’s work for him, but, here is an article by Openhiemer in the Miami Herald that asks quetions about the problem and gives some facts.

Who the hell cares about Eurotrash whining about Americans?
-you slurred Europeans

typical of a liberal and an afrocentric to lie about YT
-insulted blacks and the fact that you used the word “YT” shows you are a racist since only racist whites use that to talk down to blacks about their experiences with racism and to bolster their own self esteem.

Commit no crime and you will not have accidents like this happen.

Stop with this “NO SNITCHIN” being embraced as popular culture in the black community and it might limit these types of accidents.

Stop resisting arrest when confronted with the police and again it will limit these types of accidents.
-right there you blatantly ignore racism against blacks when it comes to police.

We will never die.
-in reference to white people

that is just some of your vile i didn’t bother to look through your arguments with everyone else.

Again, this is my pondered OPINION based on the logical inconsistincies in Redeye’s so-called philosophy (which, more and more, seems to me to be a grab-bag of some white guy’s notion of what radical black militancy is all about).

typical of a liberal and an afrocentric to lie about YT
-insulted blacks and the fact that you used the word “YT” shows you are a racist since only racist whites use that to talk down to blacks about their experiences with racism and to bolster their own self esteem.

Commit no crime and you will not have accidents like this happen.

Stop with this “NO SNITCHIN” being embraced as popular culture in the black community and it might limit these types of accidents.

Stop resisting arrest when confronted with the police and again it will limit these types of accidents.
-right there you blatantly ignore racism against blacks when it comes to police.

We will never die.
-in reference to white people

that is just some of your vile i didn’t bother to look through your arguments with everyone else.

1. Eurotrash is not a racist slur, they are my people. So, is every black person that calls another black N$$$$$ racist too?

2. Where do you think I got “YT” From? I got it from racist black people, not white people….smh

3.I don’t ignore racism against blacks, but how come the majority of black people I know have no problems of racism? Could it be they are law biding Americans?
Did a lightbulb go off in your head on this one?

4. No we will never die out, so whats the big deal, just stating facts. No racism there

55 Gallon Drum #101, I fail to see your accusations of racism at all….You on the other hand are racist. One must only read your posts to see YO racism, girly.

looks like “great” white man didn’t keep his end of the bargain…too bad abagond won’t ban you since you did say that if we proved your racism you would leave permenently. its been proved, even thad called you a racist as did others.

55 Gallon Drum #101
looks like “great” white man didn’t keep his end of the bargain…too bad abagond won’t ban you since you did say that if we proved your racism you would leave permenently. its been proved, even thad called you a racist as did others.

goodbye now. go troll someone else.

—————————————–

People on this blog call people racist for any reason at all. If you don’t have a pillow biting vision of the world, you are racist. It’s absurd.
Being called racist has no meaning anymore, truthfully. I mean that is the worse name you can be called IMHO but when you deal with people with your mindset who scream racism because I walked over your rose bushes…..it really has no effect.

Take for instance this subject of “Border Jumpers” that is supposed racial slur, but in actuality it is a literal description of these criminals. People on this blog do not see that reality.
They see poor Mexicans being persecuted for trying to find a better life….smh
Maybe we should do what Iran does….Accuse them all of spying and hold them until we are ready to turn them loose.
Would you LIEberals like that?
You don’t seem to understand that there are thousands of immigrants whom are law-biding waiting for there chance to come to the greatest country on earth, and going through legal process to do so……The “Rio Grande Swim Team” has no right to jump in line in front of these law biding immigrants.

With regard to this law it will be interesting what happens afterwards?? Already we have started to see a ‘sign’ with the removal of ethnic studies, which I must admit surprised me. Since politicians tend to act a little bit more shrewdly – but then again I am not in the US, or perhaps the politicians are now full of confidence – who knows??

This whole affair kind of reminds me of the ‘promises’ made pre-elections by politicians, from their respective parties, and almost everytime without fail, post-election is a completely different story.

You know what, J and Thad, you all need to be coming up with the information about how people can legaly stand up for their rights in the face of if there is any misuse and abuse by police officers.

Lots of police in New Mexico are hispanic, I asume the same thing in Arizona. They arnt all cracker red necks

If this law is already passed,its out of our hands, but , what I can agree with both of you about is, lets stay on top of the legal issues to keep preasure on the police to not abuse this law, and that is through the courts, and , down on the ground vigilance.

And, in the face of the severity of this law, I am totaly in favor of coming up with new laws that will be able to make people coming into the states to work , have some kind of legality and accountability.

I thought that is meant to be the whole point bring in something draconian under the pretext of the law, but a law that is meant to benefit the locals.

So if things do run to plan, or as I envision it. Then it is ultimately too late. And hence the importance of stopping any such bill before its attempt to become law.

We will just have to wait and see, but if it turns out to be ‘bad news’. I am afraid it will be too little to late, and taht will also be teh case for those who supported it.

As I said the closest example I can think of in the US is the Patriot Act. And even though RR and I had our differences. Even he, if I have understood him correctly, conceded that is what did happen and the US are still living under the effects of that law, which came out 2002 and reduced US citizens civil liberties(??)

Was there not talk of applying this law to other States, and also why the removal of Ethnic Studies from
colleges(??) in Arizona why was it not done previously, if they had always wanted to get rid off it??

I am afraid I do not know about California and marijuana so I cannot be off much use in this respect

And, in this case about Arizona, I am in the dark about a lot of stuff, that is exactly why I need more information about it from people from Arizona.

I did read the Al Jazeera article you brought in , and, I thought it did show elements from both sides.

I dont know, it just seems differant from the Patriot law.

Its funny though, since I plead that I dont know a lot about it, I need to be pursuaded one way or the other, but, if people try to push my one way or the other and insult me in the process, it doesnt exactly help their cause….luckily , Im doing my own reseach to make my own desician

You know, Thad , I am not trying to pursuade you, I am asking you or anyone for some lincs to some on the ground Arizona information about this subject..so I can make a desician as to how I feel about it

Its you that started the attacks and the belittling, and, I defenitly know how to deal with people like you.

And , it boggles the mind, that your way to pursuade people of your point of veiw is to belittle them and say they are prejudice .

I have to try to come to a conclusion inspite of you , because your way of arguing only pushes me in the opisite direction

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Of course, but this law doesn’t do that, does it? It is not going to help one slightest bit with drug gangs.

Besides which, many probably have the resources to acquire forged documents. Drug dealing is a business. Once you create a vacuum, others will step in Mexican or not. Prohibition proved this. As long as people are using illegal drugs as much as they do, the market will be there. How about preventative measures? Targeting ‘illegal’ immigrants is not going to lessen drug use. People that use drugs will look elsewhere. Some other people will fill the void.

Im sorry , Thad, your words just dont cancel out these realities.I dont say they wipe out your , and, other peoples points of veiw here. I only say, these reports need to be seriously considered. This Arizona situation has parameters that it is dealing with , that just arnt the same everywhere

This is the same problem with farc illegaly coming into brazil ,setting up distribution networks that reach all over Brazil and get to the big drug gangs in Rio.

Farc is raping Brazil. Any one sluffing that off , isnt dealing with reality.

It is eating away at the fabric of Brazilian society, and, there is a paralell situation with Arizona.

I still want to do more research ,I havent made up my mind definitly on this yet, but, lofty moral pontification is not the same as what is happening on the ground.

This is a second post coming in after another post that is sitting in spam , so , I hope they both come in.

Heneith, what I would support 100 percent more than this law , is legalisation of marijuana. Take the bad part of what is going on , right out of criminal hands. I would support that with out a doubt over this law.

I would support better national immigration laws that would bring illegal immigrants into the system and be able to tax them to support the services they need in the country.

But, this comunity I brought in on the other post (that is waiting in spam now) , is suffering greatly on the ground.And that has to be taken into consideration, and it is not on this thread.

Also, nowhere on this blog has the actual law been stated correctly.

” opponents outside the state are applying attributes to it that don’t exist. For example, many opponents are under the mistaken belief that police officers can just randomly stop people on the street if they think they might be an illegal alien. The truth is, officers can only question people who have been stopped for other potential violations. This aspect of the law isn’t without precedence. In Pennsylvania, for example, officers can cite a driver for not wearing a seat belt, but only after they’ve been stopped for a moving violation. This punches a large hole in the theory propagated by pro-amnesty advocates that the new law will “distract” police officers from fighting crime (as though illegal entry into the U.S. weren’t a crime). All this law does is allow police officers to question suspects about their immigration status, detain them until it’s cleared up and/or charge them if they cannot produce documents validating their legal residency. Once the charges are filed, the suspect is then turned over to immigration authorities for further action, including deportment.”

This thread , for me, has been anything but for real about stating the actual on the ground situation.

It has some of the most knee jerk arguments with a great lack of actual information, on both sides.

No where on this thread is there any real information that can help me come to the proper conclusion about this situation, for that reason, Im not going to discuss it any more, Im going to educate myself about this issue and make my own desician.

All arguments anyone can make here anymore, are mute as far as what I need to know, so dont bother addressing them to me anymore. I am going to be looking for the real issues at hand from both sides about this from now on in the real world.I just didnt get it here.

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES

here is exactly what the law sais

that doesnt indicate the officer can just stop anyone on the street , they have to have probable cause to beleive the person has commited a public offence

Its one thing what the law says, it is another thing what the law does…and yet still it is another thing why the law was implemented in the first place??

Reading the above law as it relates to Arizona reminded me of the reason why police say they are stopping individuals in England,viz. stop and search Blacks and Muslims, and its contradistinction which actually is a form, of ‘state repression’.

Who the hell is “Allou Wilkerson”? There’s no notice of her that I can find anywhere on the internet EXCEPT for this article. Do you know how almost utterly impossible that is for a so-called “freelance writer” these days?

This is someone’s sock-puppet and it looks like an attempt to generate some sort of astroturf movement. Interesting that the only people putting this article out on the intertubes are extremely conservative blogs and websites.

This looks to me like some whiteboy Republican’s idea of an “black sounding” commentator who’ll parrot the far right position.

In fact isn’t that what anyone would say to black people, YOU for that matter that you follow the law and people like you won’t be subject to say..stop and search racial profiling by the police. Immigration isn’t that cut and dry…

There’s a real solid reason why the Reptillians are scared sh1tless about immigration, to the point where they are building black sock-puppets to whine about illegal immigrants.

It’s called demographic shift and it’s set to bite the Elephant on the ass in the next decade.

Republicans felt that they might be able to co-opt more conservative latinos into their party. A handful have gone that way, mainly Miami Cubans and Texas “Spanish”. Most Latinos, however culturally conservative, are well aware which is the racist and reactionary party in the U.S. and won’t vote Republican.

The Reptiliians are afraid of losing power for a generation, the way they did the last time they played this game. 1920s: immigration ban. 1930s to 1960s: democrats run the country. Why? All those “not white” whites knew full well what the Republican Party was up to and they – and most particullary their kids – didn’t forgive nor forget.

This is the “demon” Rush and company are looking square in the jaw: either the Republican party needs to become truly multicultural – which would lose them their white-trash, bible-thumping base, or they’re gonna have to start disenfranchizing like never before in the country’s history.

This law is bad because it in effect allows racial profiling. If the law stands up against a Supreme Court challenge then more laws will be passed that allow racial profiling and it will no longer be a dirty little secret but an open practice – which means way more of it will be done.

That’s the gist of it, not so much immigration. Immigration is being used as an excuse. As I’ve said before, who’s next? Wait until they start on other groups under whatever guise.

”the problem is noone wants to follow the law they would rather blame everything on racism”

I was merely questioning her logic, that take her stance and apply it to the ‘incarceration post’ ie black men pulled over, racially profiled whether they committed crimes or not, is wrong.
She’s aligning herself in this instance with police, that everyone follow the law, you won’t get caught. As per immigration suddenly it’s ok because you crossed the border illegaly…I disagree! They’re not criminals just because they crossed the border illegaly…yikes it’s late, am rambling, no sense, will clarify in the morning!

Also unless Abagond says the Brits can’t comment about the US, then I can comment from the north pole if I so choose!

I have banned you because, like No Slappz, you show outright contempt for my commenting policy. You are not even TRYING to follow it. So good riddance.

I hate to see BR go. He kinda grew on me. Why dont you get rid of Thad. Judging by Thads comments I can tell that he is a snake in the grass. He really hate blacks. He lives on this blog only to belittle black people.

How about this: Leaveum: you head up a committee to decide what the dogmas about race shall be around here. Abagond then inscribes these in the moderator’s rules and anyone who disagrees with them shall be banned.

That way, you can rest assured that no one will ever present an opinion you dislike or don’t understand – which, as far as I can see is your definition of “hating blacks”.

As an aside, I remember that as a kid in U.S. schools, when we were told to sing “This is my country!”, the lyrics gave us an option, to sing as native-born or as an immigrant. Either way, you were symbolically included as a member of the res publica.

I wonder that that sentiment seems to have entirely dissappeared from the U.S. today.

Not only is the law a potential violation of the 14th Amendment for equal protection, it could be a very slippery slope as far as the treatments of citizens as well. Whats to stop them from detaining citizens? Just because we “look” illegal? What exactly does “illegal” look like?

We have all been fooled into beleiving that immigrantion is a simple process and that all these immigrants have to do to become legal is just fill out some paper work. That is so far from the truth its scary. Even immigrants who go through the legal process sometimes have to wait in excess of 10 years just to be able to bring their husband/wife and or children over. Would you be separated from your family that long or would you take the chance and try to get here and hope for the best? It may not be right or legal, but I think its the way most humans would react when faced with some the situations these people typically leave behind. Additionally, there are limitations on how many immigrants may be awarded visas based on their country of origin. This isnt just based on countries America has poor relations with either. America pride’s itself on being a nation of immigrants, a melting pot yet we treat those who wish to come here like they are a burden, not as if their intentions are good and they actually want to make a better life for themselves. I am not saying that there is not room for reform because obviously there is. I am not saying every immigrant that comes here does so with the best intentions. But if nothing else statistically and historically we know that most people, especially those immigrating with their families are just hard working regular folks who want something better for their kids.

I think that the vast majority of immigrants would rather be legal so they dont have to live in constant fear of being found out and deported. I think if given the opportunity to become citizens through a legal, equal and fair process most would. But the plain truth is the process is not equitable and often is not fair. And trust me, I am not advocating for criminals and other malcontents to have free reign to come here. We have enough citizens that fit the bill in that regard. But unfortunately the nature of the immigration laws in this country often foreclose on the possibility of ever becoming a legal citizen if you had ever been here illegally so even those that are illegal and want to become legal have a very real danger of being deported regardless of how many years they have been here or the fact that they have been hard working and contrubuting members of our society.

We have all been fooled into beleiving that immigrantion is a simple process and that all these immigrants have to do to become legal is just fill out some paper work. That is so far from the truth its scary.

Hear, hear!

This was one of my beefs regarding B.R.’s views on immigration. As an immigrant, he knows for a fact that it’s not simply a process of “fill in a form and wait in line”, even when one is married to a citizen! And yet that’s what he was suggesting that other immigrants “just” do.

I think that the vast majority of immigrants would rather be legal so they dont have to live in constant fear of being found out and deported.

Again, hear, hear!

No one “chooses” to be illegal if they have any other possible way of immigrating.

Do we need more evidence that Obama is unconcerned about the welfare of average Americans? It seems he is contemplating a unilateral move that will circumvent Congress (and by extension, the will of the American people) and grant de facto amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens:

Obama’s intention is to issue an effective blanket amnesty. He seems inclined to start with visa overstayers but deferred action could easily be extended to all illegal aliens, which would be an unrecoverable error for this country. Our current immigration situation is a disaster, but is remediable if we take decisive action now, as the people of Arizona have done. Other states seem ready to pass their own versions of SB 1070, which is encouraging. If Obama is stupid enough to sue Arizona over SB 1070, he will seal his fate as a one term president. Go Arizona Go!

As you are well aware by now, an injunction was imposed on Arizona, barring the most important part of SB-1070 from being enforced. The judge stated that the law was preempted by federal law and that enforcing the measure would unduly burden the federal government, who presumably has better things to do. Her line of reasoning is completely tortured. Bank robbery also falls under federal purview, but this reality does not stop local police from investigating and apprehending alleged bank robbers. And why should burdening the government be a consideration in this matter? This is basically a question of national sovereignty. Judges cavalierly disregarding the clear will of the majority of the populace is a prescription for disaster. Hopefully the appeals court will be less copposed to the aspirations of American citizens and more observant of the Constitution.

Drop the i-Word. No human is illegal. When you drive over the speed limit do you become illegal? Also remember that Amerindians have been in the Americas for 30,000 years before the revolver was invented and used by U.S. gangsters to bully Mexico into selling North Mexico (New Mexico, Arizona, California, Texas). The U.S. is happy to have low cost migrant labor – but quick to disrespect the people who do the labor.

I am certainly not an authority on this but, just reading some of the comments on here about immigration not being race based. Hopefully now this is not the case but I can give the example of Australia where it was, at least until the mid 70’s.

‘Ten pound poms’ was the name given to those from the U.K who got the opportunity to migrate to Australia in order to assist in increasing the population. It started in around 1945. The offer was made but the criteria for migrants was bound under something called the ‘White Australia Policy’ and Wikipedia says:

The term White Australia Policy comprises various historical policies that intentionally favoured immigration to Australia by white people from Britain and strongly discouraged non-whites. It came into fruition with Federation in 1901, and the policies were progressively dismantled between 1949 and 1973.[1]